Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

a reply to: Seede

You asked a question. I answered it.

I will not be engaged to critique other religions' "Christs", in this thread. I have, however, presenting a few of them, in this thread, as evidence for a composite biblical figure called "Jesus of Nazareth". Actually, the list is nearly endless.

As for your Talmud evidence, it's already been addressed in this thread.

1) The Talmuds have been heavily edited and censored by Christians.
2) There are several Jesuses in the Talmuds, but I think you're referring to Jesus ben Pandira, who predates your Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

This is most likely your "Notzi".

Or perhaps.....

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

source

a reply to: DeadSeraph

What are the chances the entire thing was fabricated and the man never existed, given all the arguments presented in this thread and in the academic community? Astronomically low, if you have been paying attention.

So, see?
*pants and drools on your lap*

See? How King Arthur is the same sort of figure? Yep, there are scholars of Arthurian lore who argue all the time.

ETA: woops, had to cut it short earlier.....
there is a raging debate about who King Arthur "really was", but not much about whether a man existed at the time who inspired later "writers."

It became a legend. THOUSANDS of books that are spin-offs, fan-fiction, non-fiction, etc........

Why on earth would the current argument about "Jesus" be any different?
I think here in the dregs of this thread it is clear to see that there is no definitive evidence as to whether a man called "Jesus of Nazareth" even lived; and further, whether or not (if he did, in fact, exist) the stories are true , was he the "only begotten son of 'God'"?
I just don't think so.
Never have.
56 years now on the ground, breathing and eating and thinking.
Since my earliest memories - just, no.....this must be a children's fantasy picture book story (I LOVED children's fantasy books, you know: sword and sorcery, dungeons, dragons, damsels in distress, mirrors that could take you to another dimension, etc.

The Bible seems to me to be the same thing.
I loved the tales, but outgrew them as having anything at all to do with "truth." I read aloud to my kids: The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings; Harry Potter; The Wind in the Willows; A Wrinkle in Time;........etc. I never ever told my kids they were true and if they did not believe them they would roast in hell.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

See? How King Arthur is the same sort of figure? Yep, there are scholars of Arthurian lore who argue all the time.

There isn't a large consensus among historians that King Arthur existed. There is a consensus that Jesus did. There are written references to Jesus within 20 years of his death. There aren't any for King Arthur.

ETA: woops, had to cut it short earlier.....
there is a raging debate about who King Arthur "really was", but not much about whether a man existed at the time who inspired later "writers."

It became a legend. THOUSANDS of books that are spin-offs, fan-fiction, non-fiction, etc........

Except King Arthur wasn't actually referenced by multiple historians within a century of the time he was said to have lived. Jesus was.

Why on earth would the current argument about "Jesus" be any different?

Because of the historical evidence. At the very least, you should be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it. There are 10 arguments I presented in this thread. You could start there, instead of pretending like King Arthur is a good comparison to Jesus of Nazareth. You are making yourself look silly. Really.

I think here in the dregs of this thread it is clear to see that there is no definitive evidence as to whether a man called "Jesus of Nazareth" even lived;

There is an abundance of evidence. You simply choose to deny it due to your own personal bias.

further, whether or not (if he did, in fact, exist) the stories are true , was he the "only begotten son of 'God'"?

That isn't the subject of the thread, yet curiously, many of it's participants have let this issue cloud their judgement.

I just don't think so. Never have.

Clearly. You want to believe your own narrative, despite the evidence that runs contrary to your claims. When the evidence is provided, you ignore it, call it's sources into question, or rely on your personal feelings to make counter arguments. Your entire position can be likened to young earth creationism and all the evidence against it. Yet you cling, much like they do.

56 years now on the ground, breathing and eating and thinking.
Since my earliest memories - just, no.....this must be a children's fantasy picture book story (I LOVED children's fantasy books, you know: sword and sorcery, dungeons, dragons, damsels in distress, mirrors that could take you to another dimension, etc.

I'm glad you finally admit that your own personal childlike fantasies are largely responsible for the position you take on this subject. Your bias is patently obvious.

The Bible seems to me to be the same thing.
I loved the tales, but outgrew them as having anything at all to do with "truth." I read aloud to my kids: The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings; Harry Potter; The Wind in the Willows; A Wrinkle in Time;........etc. I never ever told my kids they were true and if they did not believe them they would roast in hell.

Yes well, Hell has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and Harry Potter was clearly a fictional character, not referenced by a multitude of outside historical sources as actually having walked the earth.

All of this will of course go in one ear, and out the other. But it seems like allowing you to continue in your smug sense of victory would be a great disservice to not only the truth of the matter, but to anyone who might still be dumb enough to read mythicist tripe, as if it were historical fact.

a reply to: windword

You asked a question. I answered it. I will not be engaged to critique other religions' "Christs", in this thread. I have, however, presenting a few of them, in this thread, as evidence for a composite biblical figure called "Jesus of Nazareth". Actually, the list is nearly endless.

You answered nothing of the six questions I posted and the discussion of the Munich Talmud was not a question it was a remark from which you and I had the same discussion in the past. I see by this post that you have not even read the Soncino Talmud or any other edition of the Talmud. If you had then you would not have posted such a childish source in this post.

Your posts are almost always in criticism of Christianity and you then say "I will not be engaged to critique other religions." You then say "I have, however, presenting a few of them, in this thread." What kind of double talk is that? You show inconsistency in almost every post I have ever read from your keyboard and truly you can either not comprehend or you are a runner. You embarrass scholarship with your templates of disinformation. I honestly do not believe you know the difference between evidence and proof. There is abundant evidence that Jesus and the characters that surround His NT are in fact overwhelming evidence of their existence. Once again you show nothing of a genuine conversation.

a reply to: Seede

I answered this question, asked by you: Real easy to knock the other guy but if the Jesus people are so wrong and so dumb then why not let them in on your great knowledge of what is the truth?" Sorry you didn't care for the answer.

The only other valid question you've asked, that wasn't loaded or filled with spite and anger, is regarding the Munich Talmud. Sorry if you don't like my answer, but here it is again. The text was written hundreds of years after the so called event, and has been edited and censored by Christians. Also, the Jesus you're referring to, predates the biblical Jesus by almost 100 years.

Pious forgeries and faulty evidence aren't evidence.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

But it seems like allowing you to continue in your smug sense of victory would be a great disservice to not only the truth of the matter, but to anyone who might still be dumb enough to read mythicist tripe, as if it were historical fact.

So.....
how are you going to "disallow" my posts here, again?

That's the second time you've stated that I should be silenced....
and you know what?

I never claimed that the "man" called Jesus did not exist. I only stated that there is an argument about it.
Go back and look at my posts in this thread.
I clearly said, "

The title of the thread is "Is There Evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is."

When you call him "Christ" you are appending the title of divinity and saying he is "God" (in this thread).

There may very well have been a man called "Jesus" (like thousands of other desert-dwelling iron-age citizens)....
but only Christians claim that he was "God."

Whether you like it, or accept it, or not...........
NOT EVERYONE agrees, and they haven't "agreed" for
well, ever.

Not Everyone Agrees. And that is not going to happen....did some guy called Joe walk around in 30 AD talking to people about treating each other with compassion and kindness? Maybe.
Does that make him "God"?
Nope.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=BuzzyWigs

Okay, "ad-hominem-is-my-last-resort-boy"?

you know what?

You ..... aherm....
(BW *bites tongue and sits on fingers*)
you.....

(BW *coughs and facepalms*
*remembers T&C*)

are not going to get me to stoop to your level of .....
infantile whining and insulting, straw-man red-herring agumentum ad populum ad hominem pouting.

Booya.

Oh, and....It's quite remarkable that you have not been banned yet, actually!


So, HA! LOL! (BW *ducks and runs*)

Plus...
PLUS!
I notice you do that to EVERYONE who challenges your opinion....so, no worries, I'm only taking it as evidence of your tactics against plenty (countless) others.

But....buh bye!

a reply to: windword

The only other valid question you've asked, that wasn't loaded or filled with spite and anger, is regarding the Munich Talmud. Sorry if you don't like my answer, but here it is again. The text was written hundreds of years after the so called event, and has been edited and censored by Christians. Also, the Jesus you're referring to, predates the biblical Jesus by almost 100 years.

You still do not understand. I did not ask you a question in reference to the Munich Talmud on this page. I made a passing inclusive remark in saying that the Munich Talmud is concrete evidence concerning the biblical Jesus and it most certainly is evidence. The attempt of erasure of the Biblical Jesus was not done by Christians. Why would Christians try to erase the biblical Jesus from the Munich Talmud. Are you insane? That is why I corrected your insane claim that Christians would erase their own evidence of their own Christ. Wow, you are way off on common sense. Even the Soncino Talmud verifies the Munich Talmud in referencing Jewish censoring their own Talmud and trying to erase Jesus from their own work.

Once again I urge you to try to read with comprehension and not twist this into your own misunderstanding.
In b. Sanhedrin 43 a of the Munich Talmud p.679 is shown the attempt to erase the biblical Jesus. This text is the oldest complete text that we have today of the Talmud. Not the manuscripts but the written completed Talmud. The Jesus that is referenced here is the Yahusha Notzarine. The reason that the Munich Talmud is so rare is because the Pope and French ordered all Talmuds to be burned in the twelfth century.

This is confirmed as an attempt to censor by the Soncino Talmud which references the same Yahusha the Notzarine as being hung on Passover eve. This is confirmed as the Christian Jesus because Talmud also states that Ben Stada, Ben Pandira was a false prophet who was also hung in the second century. No connection whatsoever between Jesus and Ben Stada, Ben Pandira. The source for this is in Soncino b Talmud Sanhedrin 67a and 46a.

I went through all of this in a prior post with you and even printed out the exact Munich and Soncino tracts. You can reference them there. Either you ignored the evidence or you are disingenuous but it is clear that you do not understand evidence as presented.

a reply to: Seede

The Munich Talmud was written hundreds of years after the, so called, fact. It is NOT concrete evidence of one Jesus Nazareth. All the Talmuds have been censored and edited by Christians.

The history of textual transmission of these passages is complex and scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Scholars are also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though some scholarship views the passages as reaction to Christian proselytism rather than having any meaningful trace of a historical Jesus

The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[1] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Advocates for the Christian church alleged that the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud, and claimed Joshua and its derivations was a common Jewish name, that they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

Jesus in the Talmud

There's documentation of Pontius Pilot's description of Jesus in the library of congress:

TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:

A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.

Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate

(more descriptions of Jesus during his lifetime: www.thenazareneway.com...)

Amen? Amen.

a reply to: cooperton

Lol I saw this quote at the top of your link:

"There is no description of Jesus in the New Testament or in any contemporary source. Yet, in hundreds of icons, paintings, and even coins, there is a common quality that enables us to identify Jesus in works of art. Starting in the sixth century, artistic depictions of Jesus seem inspired or even copied from a single source. "

Which seems to be giving credit to a European looking Jesus being "inspired" and not just because the Europeans were just drawing Jesus to reflect their own appearances.

I mean its not like other cultures didn't do this or anything...


As for your actual source, you posted a translated copy that actually spells our Jesus of Nazareth which immediately makes me doubtful of the website's claims of accurate description of Jesus. It SHOULD read Yeshua at the very least.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Sence when is the origin of the word christ/christian proof that jesus existed?

I curse christ all day every day at work but that doesnt make him real.

Dont say you have proof unless you do have proof or all us atheists will rip it apart and show you tgat you are wrong, at least with what you presented us with.

We need true evidence, but the vatican wont release anything because there is most likely nothing to release about him, because he never existed.

If you will take that romans word for it then why not believe the papers found last year where romans say they made up christ to unite the warring religions in and around roam.

It makes sence seeing as though jesus was appearently a jew but his father was the roman catholic god. It is somthing that the jews and catholics could agree on.

I will find links after work.

a reply to: cooperton

Of course this letter is a 6th century forgery, as in NOT WRITTEN BY PILATE. Most scholars agree that this piece of Apocrypha was part of a fictional, religious themed novel, that was never intended to be anything but fiction.

These documents that you quote are not, in fact, genuine 1st century texts. They were probably written as part of **novels** at some point, and then mistaken later for genuine documents. In the 4th century AD, there was a fashion for Christianity after it became legal. At that time the newly Christianised population wanted more texts than the bible, and for such a market, naturally there were those to supply it. The same cause is responsible for the creation of hagiography – the largely fictional accounts of the lives of the saints and martyrs.

People need fiction. They need to immerse themselves in the imagined lives of others. But recognising ancient fiction can be tough sometimes. However these items are not described as genuine by any ancient writer of the church. There is a list by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, book 3 (and book 5). This was written between 300-325 AD, so is earlier than most of these productions.
www.roger-pearse.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Lol I saw this quote at the top of your link:

"There is no description of Jesus in the New Testament or in any contemporary source. Yet, in hundreds of icons, paintings, and even coins, there is a common quality that enables us to identify Jesus in works of art. Starting in the sixth century, artistic depictions of Jesus seem inspired or even copied from a single source. "

Which seems to be giving credit to a European looking Jesus being "inspired" and not just because the Europeans were just drawing Jesus to reflect their own appearances.

I am not sure why that is at the top of the web page, considering the entire web page is about descriptions of Jesus during his lifetime. Maybe he is using that quote to present his counter-argument that there IS contemporary descriptions of Jesus.

Regardless, the primary document is Pontius Pilot's description of Jesus. You can search for it in the library of congress online database if you want further proof.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Lol I saw this quote at the top of your link:

"There is no description of Jesus in the New Testament or in any contemporary source. Yet, in hundreds of icons, paintings, and even coins, there is a common quality that enables us to identify Jesus in works of art. Starting in the sixth century, artistic depictions of Jesus seem inspired or even copied from a single source. "

Which seems to be giving credit to a European looking Jesus being "inspired" and not just because the Europeans were just drawing Jesus to reflect their own appearances.

I am not sure why that is at the top of the web page, considering the entire web page is about descriptions of Jesus during his lifetime. Maybe he is using that quote to present his counter-argument that there IS contemporary descriptions of Jesus.

Regardless, the primary document is Pontius Pilot's description of Jesus. You can search for it in the library of congress online database if you want further proof.

Well the quote is a reflection of the forgery of that letter. A forger put Pilate's name on the letter and then described a standard European. Clearly this resonated with other Europeans and it stuck. The quote is a reflection of that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Description of Publius Lentullus

The following was taken from a manuscript in the possession of Lord Kelly, and in his library, and was copied from an original letter of Publius Lentullus at Rome. It being the usual custom of Roman Governors to advertise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their provinces in the days of Tiberius Caesar, Publius Lentullus, President of Judea, wrote the following epistle to the Senate concerning the Nazarene called Jesus.

"There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him Laugh, but many have seen Him Weep. In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men"

"The Archko Volume"

Another description of Jesus is found in "The Archko Volume" which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus. This information substantiates that He came from racial lines which had blue eyes and golden hair. In a chapter entitled "Gamaliel's Interview" it states concerning Jesus (Yeshua) appearance:

"I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: 'If you ever meet him [Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy....' This Jew [Nazarite] is convinced that he is the Messiah of the world. ...this was the same person that was born of the virgin in Bethlehem some twenty-six years before..."

- The Archko Volume, translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge, Genoa, Italy, from manuscripts in Constantinople and the records of the Senatorial Docket taken from the Vatican of Rome (1896) 92-93

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: cooperton

Of course this letter is a 6th century forgery, as in NOT WRITTEN BY PILATE. Most scholars agree that this piece of Apocrypha was part of a fictional, religious themed novel, that was never intended to be anything but fiction.

These documents that you quote are not, in fact, genuine 1st century texts. They were probably written as part of **novels** at some point, and then mistaken later for genuine documents. In the 4th century AD, there was a fashion for Christianity after it became legal. At that time the newly Christianised population wanted more texts than the bible, and for such a market, naturally there were those to supply it. The same cause is responsible for the creation of hagiography – the largely fictional accounts of the lives of the saints and martyrs.

People need fiction. They need to immerse themselves in the imagined lives of others. But recognising ancient fiction can be tough sometimes. However these items are not described as genuine by any ancient writer of the church. There is a list by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, book 3 (and book 5). This was written between 300-325 AD, so is earlier than most of these productions.
www.roger-pearse.com...

Preluding the quote you gave, your "scholar" says this: "The Letter of Tiberius above I don’t know much about..."

Yet you use his quick-triggered opinion on the matter to demonstrate your point that "most scholars believe.. this is fictional"? You are being biased. Why does it bother you so much that Jesus existed?

a reply to: cooperton

Actually, I went to several web sites for that information. It's just that, that one guy's quote summed up all the info I found in one paragraph.

Here, read this one. www.johnsanidopoulos.com...

That web site won't allow me to cut and paste. But it's all there!

Now, 'cmon, you don't really think that Pilate wrote a such a letter, claiming that Jesus turned water to wine, raised the dead.....do you? It would be earth shattering news, if true! Sadly, the letter is not authentic.

dbl post

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Description of Publius Lentullus

Letter of Lentulus

The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem or Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus, and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,.[3] However, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Also, a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, and the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him.

"The Archko Volume"

The Archko Volume

The Archko Volume or Archko Library [1] is a 19th-century volume containing what purports to be a series of reports from Jewish and pagan sources contemporary with Christ that relate to the life and death of Jesus. The work went through a number of versions and has remained in print ever since. The texts are otherwise unknown, and the author was convicted by an ecclesiastical court of falsehood and plagiarism.[2

Two proven hoaxes.

a reply to: cooperton

Publius Lentulus is a fictitious person, said to have been Governor of Judea before Pontius
www.newadvent.org...

Here's another web site that declares these documents to be inauthentic, that won't let me cut and paste. www.ftarchives.net...