How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?

Post Reply New Topic

You yourself mentioned that even Einstein had to face mocking.

If we demanded even Einstein to give extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claims, it is only fair that we keep demanding such things for all the many other extraordinary claims. What? Do you really think you deserve to have it easier than Einstein did?

Einstein had to prove himself to the physics community but he was very rarely mocked. In fact the leading physicist of Germany (at the time), Max Planck took Einstein seriously while he was still a clerk in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland. Planck made sure Einstein's work was published and secured for him an academic position in Germany. That is when Einstein's career as a leading physicist took off. It took about ten years for Einstein to establish himself as a top physicist.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 10 Dec 2011, 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mock was the wrong word. Anyway, proving Einstein's theory required a lot of work. Einstein had to provide accurate predictions and design an experiment to prove it and he also had battle to get Astronomers to test it. It was difficult for Einstein to get accepted in mainstream. It is only fair that other people have it as hard if not harder.

How else should a scientist establish his bona fides? The hallmark of good science is correct prediction of experimental outcomes or physical happenings.

ruveyn

I said nothing about Einstein. But you are wrong to place scientific theory with speculation about pre historic beliefs and how they were developed into religion. If I made a statement of scientific fact then I should back it up, but this is not the same as making a statement about the history of humanities beliefs. We are all free to say what we think. Indeed there are those who think aliens came along and injected some kind of intelligence into the human race. What I am saying is more rational than what anyone else is saying.

Yes.

There's a difference between reasonable speculation based on evidence (e.g. it makes more sense that Jesus existed than that he didn't because of certain criteria applied and certain questions proposed that are MUCH better answered by assuming Jesus existed) and making up lies (misleadingly influencing uninformed people like you to follow them).

Does the book fit the review?

'"Badiou claims that this is the core of Pauline theology: that the choice to believe in the Christ-Event furnishes its own proof after the fact; that making this choice, despite evidence, generates subjectivity-defining meaning. "Let us say that for Paul, it is a matter of investigating which law is capable of structuring a subject devoid of all identity and suspended to an event whose only "proof" lies precisely in its having been declared by a subject." (Badiou, St. Paul, 5) "'

"Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (Cultural Memory in the Present)" by Alain Badiou (2003).

"A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person", Vol. 1, by John P. Meier (1991), Chapter 1, (around page 23 with amazon-dot-com preview) puts the sparsity in some perspective, while it seems Paul is the opportunistic character creator.

Then, did Omar Khayyam have Alzheimer's???, leads to "Topsy-turvy 1585" By Robin D. Gill, Luís Froís, page 144. But from references in "The wine of wisdom: the life, poetry and philosophy of Omar Khayyam" by Mehdi Amin Razavi (2005), page 30?, I still hit the wall of languages of sources

Tadzio

I don't understand riddles.

Bring a clearly specified argument to the table and let's discuss it. But be prepared to back up your claims with evidence when needed.

The "riddle" now sounds like you want evidence of the near total lack of evidence that is of the "historical Jesus" versus the total lack of evidence of the "real Jesus". "In brief, the Jesus of history is a modern abstraction and construct." Ibid. page 25, while for Paul, both types of evidence is greater (which a skeptic would wonder why, say, Colonel Parker has much less "history" than does Elvis??? But with Paul & Jesus, the inverse!! !).

The history of Paul is large enough to give foundation to contentions that Paul evidences temporal lobe epilepsy, and hence, had "divine" messages, which under critical cross-examination, lessens the credibility of his reporting on first and second-hand historical evidence. Paul's talents could be labeled as a "Barnum & Bailey effect", as with stage-named General Tom Thumb using the "Tom Thumb" name for easy marketing from folktales.

Tenuous historical evidences are also used in assigning impairments to historical figures (such as with Paul and Omar Khayyam). Since I have first-hand experiences with temporal lobe epilepsy, the "flavor" of impairment experiences match Paul's, and the "Omar Rubaiyat" style of expressions are similar to aspects of Geschwind influenced works. But, the current "most nuanced and balanced study of the elusive Omar Khayyam" references Alzheimer's in the later years (references are listed, but so far elusive for further inquiry).

The "philosophy of history" applied to Paul & Jesus may be most appropriate as applied by Alain Badiou (2003), whenever bombastic practices of a school of philosophy tries a bamboozle of indirect presuppositions.

Tadzio

I never said that Paul saw the same Jesus the other Apostles knew. He had a vision, yes. But that's about it.



Well, I'm more interested in what actual historians have to say.

Yes, we don't have sufficient evidence to suggest that Jesus must've existed for sure, but it's strong enough for us to say Jesus likely existed.

And no, it has nothing to do with what Paul believed.

Hi MCalavera,

"Actual" historians are more critical than, say, "Meier (Religion/Catholic Univ. of America), a Catholic priest". How "history" is known is an inherent problem with history. Will Durant cites much the same problem. If you discard Paul's part of historical evidence, then there's about the same level of historical evidence as that for Moses, and that is nothing external to the Torah (first books of old Testament) for Moses by actual historians, and those books are not known to be as actually historically weak as the Gospels. That leaves very unreliable "fleeting" references in untimely works for the entire historical record of Jesus, which would make Reagan's fictional friends in the authorized biography soon more real and historical than Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch:_A_M ... ald_Reagan

Tadzio

Jesus may or may not have existed, I don't care. The point I am making is that the STORY of jesus is embellished with older stories about the suns annual cycle. There is no evidence that jesus the man existed, and there is certainly no evidence to say he was the messiah, son of god, born of a virgin, died and was reborn, is the light of the world.

However in ancient astrology the sun is speculated to be born of the sign virgo (the virgin), and the sun certainly does die for 3 days and is ressurrected after the winter solstice, which the ancients knew all about. Study mesopotamia and see that they are credited with the invention of writing, astrology (in its ancient form), the signs of the zodiac, the naming of the constellations.....need I go on before you can make a simple connection?

The only way the jesus story makes any sense is if you look at it in terms of astrology and put yourself in the mind of a prehistoric hunter gatherer clan trying to make the transition to civilisation by mastering agriculture.

But Jesus lived long after the Stone Age, and theology and probably the meaning of astrology, had doubtlessly changed considerably.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Paul didn't have direct first-hand historical evidence of Jesus. The other Apostles did, though. And it was taken for granted at the time that James was Jesus' brother.