jesus in india

[BentoSpawn]

just so where on the same page, are you arguing against the historicity of the deeds of jesus, or that there was a man named jesus of gallilee who existed at around 5BC - 30AD?

 

.

Im arguing if he existed at all, i have yet to see hard evidence that convinces me of his existence.

The historical deeds of jesus is even harder to prove and is a seperate issue -thus should really only be talked about after we can establish for certain he existed in the first place.

Now for the record i am open to the fact that he did exist and i do welcome evidence, there are a large amount of religious scholars out there that he believe he existed but i am still yet to be shown any hard evidence of this fact. I am not an unreasonable person and im open to considering any evidence anyone has to share.

[qualia]

what do you consider hard evidence? what do you require to make you believe there was a person named jesus of Galilee that once existed?

[chilli]

BentoSpawn, it is not just religious scholars, but also extremely liberal scholars and the vast majority of secular historians who consider the theory that Jesus did not exist to be unsound.

The wikipedia page on the historicity of Jesus is a good place to get some source for further reading.

There is a new book by Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth which looks good, I am going to order it now.

[space cadet swami]

SpaceCadet, Stephen Colbert is being satirical, and in no way does it suggest he really believes any of the stuff he is saying!

 

And you know this because..?

http://www.nofactzone.net/2010/10/14/the-quiet-faith-of-stephen-colbert/

but I trust the experts knowledge over my own ignorance.

 

Then you choose to give your power away to someone who professes to know.

Remembering that mainstream academia is based not on actuality, but on consensus.

[nabraxas]

i can't find any sources off hand and i only just got up, but from what i can understand there's some corroborating evidence which points to jesus existing

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[qualia]

^^ another example of bias against the christian faith clouding your judgement. "apologist"? c'mon.

Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

according to this logic there was no more than 100 people alive at that time.

[chilli]

And you know this because..?

http://www.nofactzon...tephen-colbert/

 

Fair enough, I had no idea he was a catholic. I still doubt very much whether his satire is intended to be taken seriously in any way, but it does cast it in a different light.

Then you choose to give your power away to someone who professes to know.

Remembering that mainstream academia is based not on actuality, but on consensus.

 

So am I 'giving away my power' when I trust biologists to tell me about evolution? The consensus on evolution by biologists is a result of facts, not the other way around.

One does have to be a bit more careful with the study of history, since it is not as scientifically based as biology, but still I value the learned opinions of those who have done far more research than me over the claims of nay sayers on the internet.

This is not giving away my power, it is learning to trust sources based on their history, integrity and the quality of the evidence the present. I have no problem disagreeing with the consensus on Jesus, but would only do so after doing a lot more research of my own, which I simply don't have time or inclination for right now, so I trust the consensus of the relevant experts (generally excluding any highly religious scholars).

[qualia]

and those sources are no more than 1 or two generations away. easily enough time to have oral traditions tell of the existence of a jesus. do you automatically doubt anyone who tells you of their existence of a grandparent?

[qualia]

and speaking of proof, where is everyone's beyond scientific doubt proof that there never was a jesus? wheres all the roman scholarly accounts that "there never was a jesus they're making it all up"? seems to me if we're talking reasonable doubt the evidence is in favor of the affirmative.

[space cadet swami]

I think if there was a person called jesus of Galilee & he was alive today, he wouldn't care if u believed in his existence or not. All he would care about is whether or not u got his message.

[chilli]

I was wondering about this, qualia.

Usually, the burden of proof is upon the one making a claim, so looking at it one way it could be argued that the onus to offer proof is only on those saying Jesus did exist.

However, in an area like this where there is already an established position by thge majority of scholars that he did exist, it seems fair to say that the burden of proof is on those who would make the claim that mainstream scholarship is wrong for whatever reasons.

What do others think? Let me guess: the people I disagree with have the burden of proof.

*edit SpaceCadet, what do you think of my response to your claim about giving away power?

Edited August 30, 2012 by chilli

[whitewind]

because she knows what you guys don't, stephen colbert does satire. he's a lot like john stewart except he ridicules his opponents by emulating them.

he's a bit of a champion frankly.

 

Mmm. I watched, I saw, he conquered. You don't owe me anything sir!

[chilli]

I think if there was a person called jesus of Galilee & he was alive today, he wouldn't care if u believed in his existence or not. All he would care about is whether or not u got his message.

 

It's interesting because one of the few sayings of Jesus that the Jesus Seminar does consider probably authentic is the claim that one must give up everything and hate their own family and life to follow him, so he did kind of have tickets on himself.

[space cadet swami]

So am I 'giving away my power' when I trust biologists to tell me about evolution? The consensus on evolution by biologists is a result of facts, not the other way around.

 

You are not talking about all biologists, but only the biologists that conform to mainstream. Question mainstream academia & see where you end up...with no career. Darwins theory of evolution has holes in it & is not complete. As is Quantum mechanics & I should imagine quite a few other scientific fields of research. Science is not a closed book & continues to evolve as more & more research is done in the relative fields. When I went to school it was taught that Pluto was a planet within our solar system & now it isn't. With science nothing nothing is final.

Keep ur mind open...it's all in your belief system.

[whitewind]

The sheer weight of anecdotal evidence should be enough, I would think. If one person told you they saw a UFO you might have reason to think they might be mistaken, but if hundreds saw the same one and it got written about a few times and reported in the news, you would have to think differently, surely? Even if you disputed every explanation for it's existence, you might have to accept that hundreds of people saw something in the sky.

Yes, the stories will vary considerably (as will any eye-witness events) - especially over time, and those stories will get mixed up with stories from before the events as well as some afterwards. An exact history of events is almost impossible, especially when the context behind translations is inadvertently or deliberately lost. Has anyone watched a movie with subtitles, where you know that something has been lost in translation - especially a Chinese movie where there are cultural aspects you don't know anything about - like the meaning of colours used in the movie Hero? There are so many aspects of ancient Hebrew culture that I know nothing about, it makes it hard to follow the literal meaning of the stories let alone the subtle occult meanings of gnosticism.

That's kind of why we rely on scholars to do the translations for us, and why we may have to accept the general consensus that Jesus did exist. We may never have "proof" but that proof may no longer be available. What would we need - The Shroud of Turin? Even today, this example of evidence is disputed strongly by scientists.

[chilli]

The reason it is mainstream is because that is what all biologists (with the exception of a tiny minority of religious folk) have shown to be true.

Science is not a closed book, and theories are not complete: any scientist would agree with this.

Do you really question the theory of evolution? What alternative theory would you propose?

[space cadet swami]

Do you really question the theory of evolution? What alternative theory would you propose?

 

I didn't say "I question it", I said it was "incomplete"...don't look for something that isn't there.

[whitewind]

Stories don't spring up out of no-where. Could you create the same sort of database of knowledge around someone like Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler were they never to exist? What about Pope John Paul II, or Mother Theresa? Surely that person would have to exist for the stories to even begin to gain foothold, let alone carry over two thousand years of history? Can you name one other figure in recent history that people "believe" in yet there is no "proof" of their existence?

[qualia]

Gautama Buddha

[whitewind]

Let's take Adolf Hitler. What sort of proof do we have of his existence? Lot's of stories, and a few grainy films and pictures. Most of those pictures and films have been copied on to other media so they can be shown more easily, and so the originals (where they exist) can be stored. In a couple of hundred years time, if that media has survived a couple of revolutions, massive floods and a solar storm, there won't be much left to show anyone, I guarantee, of the original media, even with the clever storage techniques of today. The history of Adolf Hitler is already strongly disputed with people who question The Holocaust, and their version of events differs very strongly to the mainstream, thus providing contention within a century of the events taking place.

Can you imagine how these world-shaking historical events would look in 2,000 years time?

[chilli]

I didn't say "I question it", I said it was "incomplete"...don't look for something that isn't there.

 

You said 'You are not talking about all biologists, but only the biologists that conform to mainstream. Question mainstream academia & see where you end up...with no career.'

You seemed to be implying that biologists who propound evolution are not doing so because that theory is best supported by the evidence, but because they slavishly agree with whatever is 'mainstream' and that questioning was not allowed because of career considerations.

Science thrives on questioning. How did the mainstream become mainstream? Because of evidence.

I am not 'looking for something,' just asking questions based on your extremely controversial claims, and wsaying that if you question the integrity of the majority of biologists as you have done here, and find their theories incompatible with the evidence in some way, then please at least give a little explanation of what you mean by this and some evidence to support it.

Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

Edited August 30, 2012 by chilli

[chilli]

Let's take Adolf Hitler. What sort of proof do we have of his existence? Lot's of stories, and a few grainy films and pictures. Most of those pictures and films have been copied on to other media so they can be shown more easily, and so the originals (where they exist) can be stored. In a couple of hundred years time, if that media has survived a couple of revolutions, massive floods and a solar storm, there won't be much left to show anyone, I guarantee, of the original media, even with the clever storage techniques of today. The history of Adolf Hitler is already strongly disputed with people who question The Holocaust, and their version of events differs very strongly to the mainstream, thus providing contention within a century of the events taking place.

Can you imagine how these world-shaking historical events would look in 2,000 years time?

 

qualia's suggestion of Buddha seems a much better historical analogy to Jesus than Hitler.

[CβL]

Saying that evolution is incomplete, is like saying your fridge is incomplete because it can't wash your clothes. Evolution is a model that very closely matches the needs of: a description of how species arose from other species and changed over time. Evolution doesn't claim anything else. It doesn't claim to describe the origin of life (just the origin of species ;) ). Secondly evolution has been changing for decades - a newer development has been the idea of symbiotic evolution.

Lastly, I don't really see the point in arguing whether or not someone called Jesus existed or not. It's irrelevant.

What's relevant is whether or not one of these Jesuses/Christies performed the purported miracles - and as usual, there's zero evidence for this.

I thought this is mildly funny though:

Marine Archaeologists recently announced the discovery of a small pot that may contain the earliest reference to Jesus Christ.

The pot was found while excavating the ancient underwater ruins of Alexandria's harbor located in Egypt. The submerged area also includes the sunken island of Antirhodos where some believe Cleopatra had her palace.

Jennifer Viegas of the Discovery Channel writes about the discovery in her article posted on MSNBC. She said the small pot had the words "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS" engraved along its side.

Most believe the word CHRSTOU is a reference to Jesus Christ. The pot is dated between the Second century BC and the early part of the first century placing it comfortably within the ministry years of Jesus.

But it's the remaining words that have proved controversial because it has been interpreted to mean "by Christ the magician" or "the magician by Christ."

Frank Goddio, a member of the European Institute of Submarine Archaeology and leader of the team working the site said magicians were very popular during this time and similar bowls were used for fortune telling.

He said soothsayers would pour oil into a bowl of water and then enter a trance-like state to interpret the oil formations. During these hallucinations, the magicians encountered divine beings who could be asked questions about a person's future, for a price of course.

http://opentheword.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1380:jesus-the-magician&catid=20:archaeology&Itemid=105

 

So Jesus was a 'fortune teller'?

[qualia]

"Question mainstream academia & see where you end up...with no career."

that's quite simply not true. disproving a well established theory with adequate indisputable proof is the stuff nobel prizes are ade of. i can't think of a single scientist who wouldn't want to etch their name in the annals of history in that way. consider the recent "discovery" that light can travel faster than the speed of light, for example. or the quest for the higgs boson.

[space cadet swami]

You said 'You are not talking about all biologists, but only the biologists that conform to mainstream. Question mainstream academia & see where you end up...with no career.'

You seemed to be implying that biologists who propound evolution are not doing so because that theory is best supported by the evidence, but because they slavishly agree with whatever is 'mainstream' and that questioning was not allowed because of career considerations.

Science thrives on questioning. How did the mainstream become mainstream? Because of evidence.

I am not 'looking for something,' just asking questions based on your extremely controversial claims, and wsaying that if you question the integrity of the majority of biologists as you have done here, and find their theories incompatible with the evidence in some way, then please at least give a little explanation of what you mean by this and some evidence to support it.

Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

 

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/858

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

chilli don't forget it was Albert who said, "I refuse to believe that god plays dice with the Universe"

This coming from a man who helped formulate quantum theory. Who himself formulated both the special & general theories of relativity....a religious fanatic..?

I don't care what you believe at the end of the day, it has no affect on my life in anyway whatsoever. Your zealot type of belief in science, is in reality no different to the blind ignorance portrayed by orthodox religious fanatics. The point that I am trying to convey to you, is that belief in something because somebody says so, no matter how qualified they may be, is "blind", regardless of how much proof they say they may have. The only reality an individual knows for certain is their own perception & this in itself can be bought to question in itself. What is reality..? Maybe one of your psych professors has the answer, or maybe it's in Jung's collective consciousness, or the repressed sexual mind of Freud..?

You are right, Hitler was not a good example, Buddha is a way better choice.