Has Archaeological Evidence for Jesus Been Discovered?

a reply to: mOjOm

We all know why people make these arguments and it's not to be skeptical at least be honest.

And Muhammad spoke to angles in a cave and shiva has 8 arms.... I think

It's a gut punch argument made to piss off Christians and do it because it works.

what about all other teachings of Jesus.

Does nobody here knows about the Essenes or Gnosticism?
They include personal anecdotes and teachings and even meditation techniques, etc...,
supposedly taught by Jesus himself!

Both of them are more close to the truth than the bible as far as I am concerned, while I am sure many would disagree. But if Christians accept the gospels, than they should also consider these materials and study them.

in every religions there are eso and exo -teric parts...but only one is mainstream, unfortunately!

a reply to: defiythelie

And all these records exist? Did they make copies?

I'm not even Christian just calling people out on their tactics to incite emotions.

Oh and my amazement at why some atheists defends Islam yet criticize everything Christian.

You have proof of Muhammad because he actually controlled and took all of Arabia through war and raids.

Just as I said before the poor and uneducated probably can't write and jesus mostly was with the poor. So having few records makes sense. We will never know for sure the rest is speculation and bias

originally posted by: JDmOKI

We all know why people make these arguments and it's not to be skeptical at least be honest.

And Muhammad spoke to angles in a cave and shiva has 8 arms.... I think

It's a gut punch argument made to piss off Christians and do it because it works.

No dude. I'm being honest.

Immaculate Birth.
Uses Magic to Heal, Walk on Water, etc.
Dies and comes back from the Dead.

Reasons that are just as unbelievable as having 8 Arms.

Does that mean there isn't a possible Real Person that Jesus might of been characterized from??? Maybe. But if there was he was just a man.

Think about it man. All the gods and demigods and avatars that have been created by all the different cultures over time. There are thousands of them. You don't believe in any of them accept one. Because that's the one you choose to believe in and you don't give a single thought to the rest being true. That's the same as anyone else not believing in your God but choosing which ever one they choose. Exact same thing. So your no different.

All atheists have done is give up that last one too. Nobody is special because of what they believe or don't believe.

a reply to: JDmOKI
Based on a real person. Maybe. Actually was born of a virgin,walked on water and rose from the dead. Not likely at all.

a reply to: JDmOKI

It a because there aren't multiple threads about Islam everyday. But everyday there are threads about Jesus and the. Bible being scientifically accurate(hahaha).

If there was threads about Islam making wild claims about it's truth and scientific accuracy we would give it the same critique.

Also for the record I've never had a Muslim tell me in going to be judged by god and suffer his torment. I've never had a Muslim show up at my door annoying me about conversion. Christians I have had many experiences like this with.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: defiythelie

And all these records exist? Did they make copies?

I'm not even Christian just calling people out on their tactics to incite emotions.

Oh and my amazement at why some atheists defends Islam yet criticize everything Christian.

You have proof of Muhammad because he actually controlled and took all of Arabia through war and raids.

Just as I said before the poor and uneducated probably can't write and jesus mostly was with the poor. So having few records makes sense. We will never know for sure the rest is speculation and bias

I can tell you why some Atheists seem to "defend" Islam in the western world. In the western world Islam is not really a thing, has no where close to the power that Christianity has in the western world. Even in countries where Christianity has severally declined, Christianity is still embedded into law or tradition even if it has evolved to a point where it is not that obvious. Anyways, in these countries Christianity is the ruling religion that Atheists come across. So any oppression these Atheists may face will always be at the hands of Christianity the majority of times. Atheists disbelieve in all religions equally. However when the Atheists see the majority ( Christians) attack Islam in the same way they have attacked Atheism it becomes a no brainier to point out the hypocrisy. When you have Christians calling the god of Islam evil all the while Islam has the same god has Christianity. While you have Christianity pointing out the calls of violence in the Quran all the while these Christians ignore the same in their own holy book.

Then you take into account all the post 9/11 feelings, all the calls to glass the middle east by Christians etc. These Atheist see the same tactic used against them used against Christianities sister religion, Islam and they start to see a pattern.

But for the most part the few Atheists that may stand up for Islam are only doing it to fight against mindless bigotry. Other then that they have the same f*** Islam as they do f*** Christianity or any other religion mentality. Basically it is very easy for a majority to demonize a minority and in the western world Atheism and Islam are both a minority. So some Atheists will stick up for other minorities when they see them being hypocritically demonized. Even when they don't ultimately agree with what that other demonized group stands for.

Anyways, for me, Christian or Muslim I don't want anything to do with either. Especially Christianity. Because that is the only religion that has ever oppressed me in my day to day life as an Atheist. If the tides turn and Christianity are the minority and the Muslims are the majority in the western world then I will flip my script if the Muslims are hypocritically attacking Christians.

a reply to: defiythelie

My point exactly. I was never forced Islam into my face like I have Christianity.

originally posted by: PanPiper
So i had a discussion on ATS about if Jesus was a living person or not, so i just wanted to share with you a story.

Skeptics have often pointed out that no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ has been discovered. And they are correct, at least perhaps up until the present. A recent incredible discovery may put to rest that criticism.

A secondary issue must first be considered. Is it reasonable to expect such artifacts or inscriptions? After all, the man Jesus was not a prominent governmental leader. He was essentially an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, and eventually suffered the death of a common outlaw. Would the Romans have recorded His life or death with an inscription or statue? Certainly not.

With or without the ossuary or other archeological evidence, we can still be confident that the events are true. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, well grounded in the facts of history, and the Bible is an entirely accurate document. On its teachings we can base our lives and eternal destiny.

Like the text says, its all based on faith..

Link

The text also says (in the same paragraph) that the christian faith is "a reasonable faith" and then, in a most unreasonable manner, makes the boldly presumptuous and stunningly ignorant statement that the bible is "an entirely accurate document".

The bible is largely based on hearsay, not even remotely "well grounded in the facts of history"; most, if not all, of the passages about Jesus were written after his death and many by people who had never even met the man. When people make statements like that, it automatically casts suspicion upon everything else they say from then on out.

I personally have no doubt that he existed. I don't think he was the physical embodiment of a deity, but I do think he was probably an amazing person who truly felt it was his purpose to convey a message to humanity of love and peace. I think he'd have been fascinating to talk to.

a reply to: PanPiper

The crux of the matter is more, was Jesus King of the Jews? which seems to be in some confusion. He certainly was a Rabbi.

But on the same question, is there any proof for Abraham - none in the slightest - so there you go no initial patriarch either.

originally posted by: PanPiper
Has Archaeological Evidence for Jesus Been Discovered?

So, no, then.
There remains absolutely no independent eyewitness accounts from a time loaded with literate reporters and historians.
Another vote for 'imaginary'.

The "Official" story is that the Romans had all evidence scrubbed from their records - they realised that they had turned the political agitator into a martyr and had created a new religion in doing so.

FYI, Pontius Pilate, the governor who famoulsy washed his hands of the affair and told the people of Jerusalem that Jesus' blood was on their heads was also missing from Roman records until.......

On the partially damaged block is a dedication to the deified Augustus and Livia ("the Divine Augusti"), the stepfather and mother of emperor Tiberius, originally placed within a Tiberieum, probably a temple dedicated to Tiberius. It has been deemed authentic because it was discovered in the coastal town of Caesarea, which was the capital of Iudaea Province[4] during the time Pontius Pilate was Roman governor. The partial inscription reads (conjectural letters in brackets):[3]

[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIÉUM
[...PO]NTIUS PILATUS
[...PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
[...FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]

The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:

To the Divine Augusti [this]
Tiberieum ...
Pontius Pilate
...prefect of Judea
...has dedicated [this]

en.wikipedia.org...

So it's not quite proof of Jesus himself, but it is proof that the governor of Judea who allegedly allowed his crucifixion existed.

Was there at least one chap named Yeshua in First Century Judea who followed the rather common practice of the time in combining Hebrew, Greek, Egyptian and Persian elements in his philosophy (syncretism) who also happened to be an itinerant teacher going from town to town with a regular group of supporters and students?

Probably.

Was the essential figure of "Jesus Christ, Son of God" created a few centuries later by Roman authorities who utilized the myriad of "messiah cults" that had been active in the clash of different societies, beliefs and religious practices brought about by the Imperial conquests in an attempt to consolidate political power by reinforcing and reinvigorating the one official State religion?

Probably.

Was there one man born as a bastard demigod from a supernatural assault by the minor desert god YHVH (based on the Canaanite deities El, Baal, etc. whose names still survive in the texts (Torah and Bible) themselves?) upon a young Hebrew girl who later became a powerful magician capable of controlling the weather, defying gravity and resurrecting the dead?

Probably not.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Annee

I'm atheist and believe there was a man (or men) the Myth Jesus story came out of.

Personally, I think the "Jesus Story" is just like Isaiah's "Suffering Servant", meant to be seen as an allegorical personification of the Nation of Israel......crucified by the Romans.

I actually believe there is a real story. The "terrorist" one.

He was no pacifist. But, that's not what the threads about.

We don't know what he was but that's a fairly safe bet. Tacitus mentions him in passing as a "criminal" executed by Pontius Pilate.

One can only conjecture as to what the crime was...but being a poor itinerant preaching about God's kingdom doesn't cut it.

a reply to: CJCrawley

I think you have the problem when Jesus says "I didn't come to change the law" he is implying that the Sadducees and Pharisees and other political groups of priests were erring from the law. You get a echo of it when he overturned the tables of the money lenders and offering sellers by the temple.

History is written by the winner and Jesus didn't win except to fulfil prophesy as far as the Jews were concerned and a number followed him, which meant those in authority saw their positions threatened so he was hated by the Jewish priesthood who could say anything they wanted to the romans about him.

a reply to: PanPiper

it has been determined to be a real ossuary from the time, but the inscription a modern day forgery.

at the bottom of your link it seems to state that the article was written in 2002 see below.

ite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 2002. Has Archaeological Evidence for Jesus Been Discovered?. Acts & Facts. 31 (12).

here is a article from 2003 in the National Geographic Daily News.

"The dealer who sold it was a man of questionable reputation who had a history of inappropriate dealings with various museums and government agencies," Eric Meyers, an archaeologist at Duke University, told National Geographic several months ago.

Meyers doesn't question whether the box is genuine and dates back to the first century. But he never believed the inscription was authentic.
"Jesus Box" Is a Fake, Israeli Experts Rule

when i read what your thread was about the fist thought i had was, is this the same thing that that scumbag Simcha Jacobovici did a documentary about. sure enough it is. Never believe any this guy does a documentary on.

a reply to: defiythelie

a reply to: JDmOKI Why would the Romans make record of it? Because they made records of even the most mundane things as did the Egyptians. Much like we do today.

Not true at all. Jesus was not a registered cult in the records of the Romans. If he had organized his doctrine into a certified religion He would have then been entered in the hall of records as such. Rome allowed any and all religions that were not seditious to Rome to exist and practice their beliefs. Jesus' brother Jacob (James) did register and was allowed the usage of the temple and its literature.

To show that the Romans did not keep all records and were selective as to their history is to look at Pontius Pilate. There is or are no written records of a Pontius Pilate in the Roman hall of records. There has never been one slip of parchment or paper that shows this man was the Prefect of Judaeae from 26 CE to 36 CE. No record that he was recalled because he disobeyed the Roman Courts.

All death penalties were to be submitted to Rome and approved by Rome before any death of slave or citizen would be allowed - Naturally any defense of Rome is not needed for approval but full report is required. So Pontius Pilate did usurp authority in the death of Jesus and Rome had nothing to do with authorizing Jesus' death. Jesus' uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, pressed this issue in Rome and as a result Pilate was recalled and deposed.The only record known to exist other than historians is the Pilate Stone found in 1961 which reads Prefectus Ludaeae.

So by all of this why should a little preacher among hundreds of little preachers have any more recognition in Roman records when in fact Jesus' death was never approved by Rome or even considered in the Roman courts? Rome erased Pilate from their very own records so why would they consider a little Jew who was insignificant to their nation as being so important as to warrant recording? This bible bashing is simply just that.

originally posted by: Seede
This bible bashing is simply just that.

You went through a decent argument, actually, until this last sentence.

Stating that there are no contemporary historical records of "Jesus Christ, Son of God" is not Babel bashing ... it's fact.

a reply to: NightFlight

Well the Bible says that Judas hung himself on a hill, on property he bought with money he stole from the purse he carried during the earthly mininstry of Jesus. and His body fell to the bottom and burst open and it rotted there.

Joh 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Mt 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Ac 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

a reply to: Seede

I'm always entertained by apologist's mental gymnastics. Jesus was just a small town, illiterate nobody when it suits you, and a gifted scholar of the Torah who attracted multitudes of followers, according to the Bible.

So by all of this why should a little preacher among hundreds of little preachers have any more recognition in Roman records when in fact Jesus' death was never approved by Rome or even considered in the Roman courts?

Lots of "little preachers" were documented, including "The Egyptian" and an unnamed Sumerian, and his troupe that caused a riot when Pilate tried to have them crucified, that ultimately led to Pilate's recall to Rome.

Josephus provides an informed account of the activities of the Zealots in the Ancient worlds. His information has led to extensive knowledge concerning the political atmosphere of the time and the relevant information on zealots in the ancient world. Allen informs the audience that "Josephus refers to the Zealots as the "fourth Jewish philosophy," founded by Judas the Galilean (in 6 A.D.); he strongly contends that all succeeding troubles including the burning of the Temple can be traced to his teaching"

He also documented the following little preachers and their movements:
Zadok/Saddok
Eleazar son of Ananias
Eleazar son of Jairus
Menahem, son of Judah of Galilee
Simon bar Giora
John of Gischala

SOURCE