How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
15 Dec 2011, 2:50 am
MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Honestly, the best evidence that I can think of for the historical Jesus are the questions proposed for the historical Jesus that cannot be better answered collectively by any coherent mythicist answer.
Tacitus' report shows evidence that Christians existed as early as the time reported, but how can we know with such evidence that these Christians didn't just make up a figure called Christ?
Tacitus' report shows evidence that Christians existed as early as the time reported, but how can we know with such evidence that these Christians didn't just make up a figure called Christ?
Just made him up out of thin air, then laid down their lives for him? Sounds pretty unlikely to me.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well, ok, but if they strongly believed in something that's made up, it could still have led to basically the same effects.
When I say "made up", I don't necessarily mean they did it with deceit. They might've been affected so much by the continual oppression that kept going on with the Jews that their long dearly held desire for a Messiah to arrive and save them from the evils of the world was so psychologically great the originators came up with such a figure that would meet their psychological and emotional needs and had slightly later believers who truly believed Jesus was real die for the faith.
But by Tacitus' time, plenty of Christians could just as often be Gentiles as well as Jews. And as I said, there were the Apostles who had all known Jesus in life. We know these men had existed due to their letters they had written, which were included in the New Testament.
I'm not trying to push Christian theology on you, but the simple fact is, I don't know of a single legitimate historian who has cast doubt on Christ's existence. Whether he was the Son of God is a matter of faith, but I think it's without doubt that he had actually lived.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
15 Dec 2011, 3:11 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Honestly, the best evidence that I can think of for the historical Jesus are the questions proposed for the historical Jesus that cannot be better answered collectively by any coherent mythicist answer.
Tacitus' report shows evidence that Christians existed as early as the time reported, but how can we know with such evidence that these Christians didn't just make up a figure called Christ?
Tacitus' report shows evidence that Christians existed as early as the time reported, but how can we know with such evidence that these Christians didn't just make up a figure called Christ?
Just made him up out of thin air, then laid down their lives for him? Sounds pretty unlikely to me.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well, ok, but if they strongly believed in something that's made up, it could still have led to basically the same effects.
When I say "made up", I don't necessarily mean they did it with deceit. They might've been affected so much by the continual oppression that kept going on with the Jews that their long dearly held desire for a Messiah to arrive and save them from the evils of the world was so psychologically great the originators came up with such a figure that would meet their psychological and emotional needs and had slightly later believers who truly believed Jesus was real die for the faith.
But by Tacitus' time, plenty of Christians could just as often be Gentiles as well as Jews. And as I said, there were the Apostles who had all known Jesus in life. We know these men had existed due to their letters they had written, which were included in the New Testament.
I'm not trying to push Christian theology on you, but the simple fact is, I don't know of a single legitimate historian who has cast doubt on Christ's existence. Whether he was the Son of God is a matter of faith, but I think it's without doubt that he had actually lived.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I don't dispute the historical likelihood of Jesus' existence. I just don't agree that Tacitus is good enough evidence for Jesus himself.
Yes, Christians even in the earliest times truly believed Jesus was real even though many never met him and heard about him until after he had already died. But strength of faith to the point of being persecuted to death is no evidence for the validity of the faith.
We see an example of this in the Jones' cult (the Peoples Temple) and Heaven's Gate cult. Loyal believers committed suicide because they truly believed.
But again, I agree Jesus likely did exist. It's just the evidence in Tacitus is pretty poor.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
15 Dec 2011, 3:44 am
MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Honestly, the best evidence that I can think of for the historical Jesus are the questions proposed for the historical Jesus that cannot be better answered collectively by any coherent mythicist answer.
Tacitus' report shows evidence that Christians existed as early as the time reported, but how can we know with such evidence that these Christians didn't just make up a figure called Christ?
Tacitus' report shows evidence that Christians existed as early as the time reported, but how can we know with such evidence that these Christians didn't just make up a figure called Christ?
Just made him up out of thin air, then laid down their lives for him? Sounds pretty unlikely to me.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well, ok, but if they strongly believed in something that's made up, it could still have led to basically the same effects.
When I say "made up", I don't necessarily mean they did it with deceit. They might've been affected so much by the continual oppression that kept going on with the Jews that their long dearly held desire for a Messiah to arrive and save them from the evils of the world was so psychologically great the originators came up with such a figure that would meet their psychological and emotional needs and had slightly later believers who truly believed Jesus was real die for the faith.
But by Tacitus' time, plenty of Christians could just as often be Gentiles as well as Jews. And as I said, there were the Apostles who had all known Jesus in life. We know these men had existed due to their letters they had written, which were included in the New Testament.
I'm not trying to push Christian theology on you, but the simple fact is, I don't know of a single legitimate historian who has cast doubt on Christ's existence. Whether he was the Son of God is a matter of faith, but I think it's without doubt that he had actually lived.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I don't dispute the historical likelihood of Jesus' existence. I just don't agree that Tacitus is good enough evidence for Jesus himself.
Yes, Christians even in the earliest times truly believed Jesus was real even though many never met him and heard about him until after he had already died. But strength of faith to the point of being persecuted to death is no evidence for the validity of the faith.
We see an example of this in the Jones' cult (the Peoples Temple) and Heaven's Gate cult. Loyal believers committed suicide because they truly believed.
But again, I agree Jesus likely did exist. It's just the evidence in Tacitus is pretty poor.
Okay, I see what you're saying now.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
15 Dec 2011, 5:20 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I recall, Peter maintained Christ was alive in the pagan myths - that is, he seemed to believe that the pagans had a sense of Christ's coming, even though they didn't grasp it in its entirety.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Who is Peter?
Jesus' disciple, called the Rock. Catholicism claims him as their first Pope.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The problem I have with religion is that it is confusing to say the least. Scholars disagree over what the events were and who said what to whom to a certain degree. When it comes to mythology there are numerous contradictions and/or apparent confusions over what things meant. So we living in the 21st century have little hope of getting to the bottom of it.
But I am placing credibility on the sun god worship as the root of all modern religion because as a human I can stand and watch the sunrise and feel what an incredible and dazzling event it is. And I can equally put myself in the position of a prehistoric man living a difficult life in a more natural state and feeling relief and joy at seeing the sunrise further north after the winter solstice because that would tell me that the all powerful sun that gives warmth and light was returning, or born again, and will feed the people for another year.
So that is why I place more credibility in ancient sun god worship and think it is the source of jesus birth and death story.
From reading the bible it sounds like jesus was a man who inspired many and wanted to seek a new way of life for people. But I don't think he was risen from the dead. And there is strong speculation that the pagans in britain accepted jesus as "just another god", they had many. But I think their one true god was the sun.
I'm a little lost. How did Britain come into the conversation?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Britain was pagan before the Romans turned up. The Romans converted us to christianity. There is speculation that the pagans initially resisted the conversion but later accepted jesus and included him as another god along with their existing gods. You mentioned Peter telling jesus that the pagans knew about his coming. If that is so, then what he may have meant was that the pagans already had a notion of the coming of a god (their solar god), which was born again after the winter solstice which was the main festival of Britain and other pagan communities for at least 3000 years prior to the Romans.
I should have been more explanatory - Peter hadn't told Jesus that; rather Peter tells this to later followers.
And it is true, pagans didn't always conceive of Christ in the proper Christian sense. Case in point - when the Frankish King, Clovis, converted to Christianity after pledging his faith in Christ in return for victory against the Franks' enemies, the Alemanni, he saw Jesus as a new war god to replace Wodan. Proof that he didn't grasp Christian theology is revealed when he was told of the story of Christ's crucifixion, Clovis raised had raised his battle axe into the air, and declared, "Had I and my Franks been there, we would have saved him!" This paganized view of Christ was probably very common among the new Frankish converts in northern Gaul, the Rhineland, and Belgium, who still clung to their Germanic warrior culture.
A few centuries later, a half pagan, fictionalized "Gospel" was written in northern Germany among the Saxons, in which Jesus is portrayed as a war chief, and his twelve disciples are his retinue of warriors.
Doubtlessly, pagan Germanic gods became hidden in Christian saints during the Middle Ages. Saint Ursula of Cologne was very probably a Frankish bear totem in Pre-Christian times, who was turned into a Christian martyr in myth.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Ok. I am not really sure why you have told me all this. Is it to imply that pagans knew nothing of christs death? Or that you think pagan myths were assimilated into christianity? Or that the pagans in Germany took on christ as a god of war?
You had mentioned pagan assimilation of Christ in Britain, and I was simply agreeing that pagans elsewhere had done the same, not really understanding Christian theology.
I thought it was, if not totally relevant, at least of interest.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Ok thanks. Yes its of interest. But it didn't relate to the sun so I wondered why it mattered.
15 Dec 2011, 5:25 am
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I think we established this a few posts ago. My speculation was not influenced by this woman you speak of.
Maybe not directly. But the origin of your belief is in her writings. So you may have got this set of beliefs of yours directly from someone else who was, in turn, directly influenced by Acharya's writings.
Quote:
My speculation is based on the following:
We have a STORY of a man called jesus, who seems to have existed around 2000 years ago in the middle east. Somehow, this mortal has been venerated with the following:
He walked on water
He healed the blind
He was born of a virgin
He was prophesised to be the saviour of humanity
At his birthplace 3 kings followed a bright star in the east to locate this saviour
He was called the "light of the world"
He was crucified on a cross
He was dead for 3 days
After 3 days he was ressurected (born again)
I am unwilling to accept that this man was capable of the above, or that any of the above actually occurred to this man, whom we cannot say for sure existed anyway.
We have a STORY of a man called jesus, who seems to have existed around 2000 years ago in the middle east. Somehow, this mortal has been venerated with the following:
He walked on water
He healed the blind
He was born of a virgin
He was prophesised to be the saviour of humanity
At his birthplace 3 kings followed a bright star in the east to locate this saviour
He was called the "light of the world"
He was crucified on a cross
He was dead for 3 days
After 3 days he was ressurected (born again)
I am unwilling to accept that this man was capable of the above, or that any of the above actually occurred to this man, whom we cannot say for sure existed anyway.
So why not just stick to that instead of adding unnecessary extraneous claims that lack evidence?
Quote:
However, I am willing to accept that all of the above can be said about the sun, which we can very confidently say exists, both now and at all times since humans have walked the Earth.
Again, you have no evidence the ancients thought the sun was collectively born of a virgin, had twelve apostles, was crucified and then later rose from the dead.
No but we have evidence to show that the ancients had high regard for the stars, invented the zoidac, knew of the moons cycle and understood the suns cycle enough to know when to plant crops and when the midwinter solstice had occurred. We knew they had language, and we know that telling stories was their way of passing on information to each other and down the generations. Then we see in our first civilisation that they had a sun god. It only requires a reasonable mind to see a strong connection with ancient beliefs and early sun god worship.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
15 Dec 2011, 12:58 pm
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I think we established this a few posts ago. My speculation was not influenced by this woman you speak of.
Maybe not directly. But the origin of your belief is in her writings. So you may have got this set of beliefs of yours directly from someone else who was, in turn, directly influenced by Acharya's writings.
Quote:
My speculation is based on the following:
We have a STORY of a man called jesus, who seems to have existed around 2000 years ago in the middle east. Somehow, this mortal has been venerated with the following:
He walked on water
He healed the blind
He was born of a virgin
He was prophesised to be the saviour of humanity
At his birthplace 3 kings followed a bright star in the east to locate this saviour
He was called the "light of the world"
He was crucified on a cross
He was dead for 3 days
After 3 days he was ressurected (born again)
I am unwilling to accept that this man was capable of the above, or that any of the above actually occurred to this man, whom we cannot say for sure existed anyway.
We have a STORY of a man called jesus, who seems to have existed around 2000 years ago in the middle east. Somehow, this mortal has been venerated with the following:
He walked on water
He healed the blind
He was born of a virgin
He was prophesised to be the saviour of humanity
At his birthplace 3 kings followed a bright star in the east to locate this saviour
He was called the "light of the world"
He was crucified on a cross
He was dead for 3 days
After 3 days he was ressurected (born again)
I am unwilling to accept that this man was capable of the above, or that any of the above actually occurred to this man, whom we cannot say for sure existed anyway.
So why not just stick to that instead of adding unnecessary extraneous claims that lack evidence?
Quote:
However, I am willing to accept that all of the above can be said about the sun, which we can very confidently say exists, both now and at all times since humans have walked the Earth.
Again, you have no evidence the ancients thought the sun was collectively born of a virgin, had twelve apostles, was crucified and then later rose from the dead.
No but we have evidence to show that the ancients had high regard for the stars, invented the zoidac, knew of the moons cycle and understood the suns cycle enough to know when to plant crops and when the midwinter solstice had occurred. We knew they had language, and we know that telling stories was their way of passing on information to each other and down the generations. Then we see in our first civilisation that they had a sun god. It only requires a reasonable mind to see a strong connection with ancient beliefs and early sun god worship.
But the question is: do you in fact have the evidence, and not just mere conjecture, demonstrating a connection between sun worship, and Christ?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
15 Dec 2011, 3:17 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I think we established this a few posts ago. My speculation was not influenced by this woman you speak of.
Maybe not directly. But the origin of your belief is in her writings. So you may have got this set of beliefs of yours directly from someone else who was, in turn, directly influenced by Acharya's writings.
Quote:
My speculation is based on the following:
We have a STORY of a man called jesus, who seems to have existed around 2000 years ago in the middle east. Somehow, this mortal has been venerated with the following:
He walked on water
He healed the blind
He was born of a virgin
He was prophesised to be the saviour of humanity
At his birthplace 3 kings followed a bright star in the east to locate this saviour
He was called the "light of the world"
He was crucified on a cross
He was dead for 3 days
After 3 days he was ressurected (born again)
I am unwilling to accept that this man was capable of the above, or that any of the above actually occurred to this man, whom we cannot say for sure existed anyway.
We have a STORY of a man called jesus, who seems to have existed around 2000 years ago in the middle east. Somehow, this mortal has been venerated with the following:
He walked on water
He healed the blind
He was born of a virgin
He was prophesised to be the saviour of humanity
At his birthplace 3 kings followed a bright star in the east to locate this saviour
He was called the "light of the world"
He was crucified on a cross
He was dead for 3 days
After 3 days he was ressurected (born again)
I am unwilling to accept that this man was capable of the above, or that any of the above actually occurred to this man, whom we cannot say for sure existed anyway.
So why not just stick to that instead of adding unnecessary extraneous claims that lack evidence?
Quote:
However, I am willing to accept that all of the above can be said about the sun, which we can very confidently say exists, both now and at all times since humans have walked the Earth.
Again, you have no evidence the ancients thought the sun was collectively born of a virgin, had twelve apostles, was crucified and then later rose from the dead.
No but we have evidence to show that the ancients had high regard for the stars, invented the zoidac, knew of the moons cycle and understood the suns cycle enough to know when to plant crops and when the midwinter solstice had occurred. We knew they had language, and we know that telling stories was their way of passing on information to each other and down the generations. Then we see in our first civilisation that they had a sun god. It only requires a reasonable mind to see a strong connection with ancient beliefs and early sun god worship.
But the question is: do you in fact have the evidence, and not just mere conjecture, demonstrating a connection between sun worship, and Christ?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
No I don't. I already told people that. No reliable evidence exists for anything about the ideas of gods and sun worship. We just have evidence to show that people of the past wrote about such things. The connection between sun worship and christ is not my arguement. I am saying that the story of jesus, that was not presumably written by christ himself, could be related to stories of what earlier people may have told about the sun. There is no evidence but it is a sound, reasonable, and unsupernatural speculation, which makes me comfortable, that the death and rebirth of christ can equally be said about the sun. I am of the mind that ancient people did have such a story, and somehow that story survived the generations (through word of mouth), and then someone attached a version of this story to Jesus. But please don't ask for evidence because there is none, it is pure speculation.
15 Dec 2011, 5:39 pm
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Again, you have no evidence the ancients thought the sun was collectively born of a virgin, had twelve apostles, was crucified and then later rose from the dead.
No but we have evidence to show that the ancients had high regard for the stars, invented the zoidac, knew of the moons cycle and understood the suns cycle enough to know when to plant crops and when the midwinter solstice had occurred. We knew they had language, and we know that telling stories was their way of passing on information to each other and down the generations. Then we see in our first civilisation that they had a sun god. It only requires a reasonable mind to see a strong connection with ancient beliefs and early sun god worship.
But we don't have evidence the ancients thought the sun was collectively born of a virgin, had twelve apostles, was crucified and then later rose from the dead.
If they had told such stories as what you claim, then we should've at least a bit of evidence in the writings of the ancients, but we see none.
15 Dec 2011, 7:07 pm
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Again, you have no evidence the ancients thought the sun was collectively born of a virgin, had twelve apostles, was crucified and then later rose from the dead.
No but we have evidence to show that the ancients had high regard for the stars, invented the zoidac, knew of the moons cycle and understood the suns cycle enough to know when to plant crops and when the midwinter solstice had occurred. We knew they had language, and we know that telling stories was their way of passing on information to each other and down the generations. Then we see in our first civilisation that they had a sun god. It only requires a reasonable mind to see a strong connection with ancient beliefs and early sun god worship.
But we don't have evidence the ancients thought the sun was collectively born of a virgin, had twelve apostles, was crucified and then later rose from the dead.
If they had told such stories as what you claim, then we should've at least a bit of evidence in the writings of the ancients, but we see none.
Hi MCalavera,
There's more than a couple hundred-thousand books that cite the bits of evidence:
http://www.google.com/search?q=sun+born ... =bks&tbo=1
Doing calculations for astronomy with a pocket calculator would give exact enough results to where the atmospheric effects out-weighed numerical approximation errors, but the "WAR" between lunar and solar calendars was still entertaining.
The only basic calendar unit that doesn't have any physical base to hard-core reality is the Seven-Day Week. The book "The Seven Day Circle" by Eviatar Zerubavel (1989) delves into that (and undermines any physical/medical "science" based on the 7-day cycle as distinct from culture).
The book I took reference programs from for different calendars and day-counts for astronomical events beyond those easy to do with hand-held calculators, was "Standard C Date/Time Library: Programming the World's Calendars and Clocks" by Lance Latham (1998), which also gave insightful explanations of unexpected paradoxes (one common one is "Which year in American History was the shortest year?" (1752??), etc.:
http://www.enotes.com/science/q-and-a/w ... ord-289389 )
There is a physical "reason" for 12 months in the Solar Calendar, and most all ancient religions exploited either Lunar and/or Solar calendars for the timing of divine and/or miraculous events (the Sunday closest to the Full Moon closest to the Vernal equinox for first guess, then tweak or go to a table like: http://www.assa.org.au/edm.html ).
So, which came first, the chicken or the egg???
Tadzio
15 Dec 2011, 7:49 pm
MCalavera wrote:
There goes another victim of the Acharyan influence. A shame, really.
Books written recently in order to sell are not primary sources that make for good evidence.
Anyone can write a book on what pattern he sees in the sun and what he perceives the ancients may have thought.
Books written recently in order to sell are not primary sources that make for good evidence.
Anyone can write a book on what pattern he sees in the sun and what he perceives the ancients may have thought.
Hi MClavera,
Do you have access to books-dot-google in Australia. Books free of copyright, and published in the 19th century and now available for free, don't seem to be recent and out for the hard-sell.
I believe astronomers decided the arbitrary Julian Zero day for the easiest count of days, and not from any mystical "Acharyan Influence". Maybe they chose the date to correspond to something about Elvis, but what does "January 1, 4713 BC Greenwich noon" has to do with Elvis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day
Maybe Moon took his name from the Moon too!
A dozen eggs doesn't have anything to do with the number twelve either, just like a baker's dozen.
Tadzio
15 Dec 2011, 7:57 pm
Tadzio wrote:
Hi MClavera,
Do you have access to books-dot-google in Australia. Books free of copyright, and published in the 19th century and now available for free, don't seem to be recent and out for the hard-sell.
Do you have access to books-dot-google in Australia. Books free of copyright, and published in the 19th century and now available for free, don't seem to be recent and out for the hard-sell.
They are still too recent to be considered evidence for what the ancients believed. They weren't written in the time of the ancients.
Quote:
I believe astronomers decided the arbitrary Julian Zero day for the easiest count of days, and not from any mystical "Acharyan Influence". Maybe they chose the date to correspond to something about Elvis, but what does "January 1, 4713 BC Greenwich noon" has to do with Elvis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day
Irrelevant to what I'm arguing, so this is a red herring.
Quote:
Maybe Moon took his name from the Moon too!
A dozen eggs doesn't have anything to do with the number twelve either, just like a baker's dozen.
Tadzio
A dozen eggs doesn't have anything to do with the number twelve either, just like a baker's dozen.
Tadzio
More red herrings.
15 Dec 2011, 11:34 pm
MCalavera wrote:
Plus, the lunar year also had 12 months. Why not say that Jesus was believed as a moon god rather than a sun god?
See how interesting patterns and man-thought coincidences are useless as evidence?
See how interesting patterns and man-thought coincidences are useless as evidence?
Hi MCalvera,
Lunar "year" calendars often have leap months (say "7 out of every 19 years"):
http://icu-project.org/apiref/icu4j/com ... endar.html
One interesting "coincidence" is that the length of the sunlight during the days closest to Spring get longer the most quickly. Then, over the year, the Analemma Looks like a Figure 8!! ! (Strange holes in ancient buildings sometimes "match" the projection.
With winter,
"The Hymn to the Aten" is Psalm 104, there's a large amount of writings, recent DNA test validating many former "conjectures", and now, if a DNA test between King Tut and one of Jesus' foreskins is a match, that's a good answer to your question. If the DNA test also matches Elvis, more questions will be generated, but the Coco-de-Mer tree is world famous for having the World's biggest nuts, and Jesus must have been a Coco-de-Mer male tree to have so many foreskins as verified relics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
Tadzio
