Proof that Jesus lived?

[Quiddity]

Shall we just end the thread then? Why broach the subject in the first place? Aren't we here to debate?

Why discuss MOST of the topics on this forum? Are we only interested in opinion?

Please continue on. Just giving you my opinon is all. Your going to get crucified if you continue to push that there is proof in my opinion. But by all means, prove me wrong.

 

[linwood]

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]

1. Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)

2. Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)

3. External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).[/font]

You realise the Bible itself fails these standards?

 

[linwood]

Well then, why would anyone accept anyone else's answer about anything on this forum? Do you not take the word of scholars?

No I don`t take the word of scholars.
I listen to their words and then attempt to falsify the support the give for their words.
Then I decide what I believe.

I am merely addressing a question about "hanging" as opposed to crucifixion. What would be a sufficient answer then? And where would the reference or 'proof' of that answer lie?

My apologies as I was making the subject much broader than your argument.
I`m sorry.

I honestly don`t even think you need to address it as it seems to me the two are easily interchangable.

However the proof of the answer would lie in Roman and Hebrew historical records .

 

[Buttercup]

I appreciate the advice Victor, I really do and I may take you up on it. I don't have a huge amount of time at the moment to rebutt on the forum anyway.

But, I do think there is enough proof to believe with reasonable certainty that Jesus did live on earth. To me, the question that will always be left to faith is not if Jesus lived, but if we was actually God. We will never be able to prove beyond a doubt that he was in fact God.

 

[linwood]

I think it would be wise you don't push either way. The concensus seems unclear to me.

In the course of our examination we have found that most sceptics accept that there is the clear possibility that an itinerant preacher with the common name, Yeshua, may have existed, but that eponymous person shared few of the many and varied characteristics and acts which were later accumulated into the gospels. Rather than simply assert or deny whether the word 'Historical' applies using a variety of possible definitions which suit various proponents' stances, our endeavours are therefore centred on the sources which made up the Gospel Jesus and how they were accreted into that complex combination of several characters represented in the canonical gospels under the name: Jesus.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

Very good!

 

[Smoke]

The passage I quote is from Joseph Klausner and his book "Jesus of Nazareth". I am assuming since the man had a Ph.D he more than likely knew more than most on this forum about Talmud writings. I trust his words.

Then which account do you think is garbled? The talmudic account or the biblical account? Do you think one provides evidence for the other?

 

[Quiddity]

I appreciate the advice Victor, I really do and I may take you up on it. I don't have a huge amount of time at the moment to rebutt on the forum anyway.

But, I do think there is enough proof to believe with reasonable certainty that Jesus did live on earth. To me, the question that will always be left to faith is not if Jesus lived, but if we was actually God. We will never be able to prove beyond a doubt that he was in fact God.

No problem.

 

[Smoke]

But, I do think there is enough proof to believe with reasonable certainty that Jesus did live on earth. To me, the question that will always be left to faith is not if Jesus lived, but if we was actually God. We will never be able to prove beyond a doubt that he was in fact God.

I have no doubt that Jesus really lived, but for me the important thing is his teachings, and they can stand alone regardless -- just as the Tao Te Ching is valuable even if Laozi wasn't a real person.

 

[Buttercup]

You realise the Bible itself fails these standards?

I think if I had a week or so just for this question, I could give it a good run.

Archaeological records (Dead Sea Scrolls) and fufilled prophecy come to mind right off the bat. And there are secular writings that confirm much in the bible as well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What "independent sources"? On what grounds do you exclude fabrication and embelishment?

I was referring to material that concerns the historical Jesus in Q and Gospel sources (independent sources for John and Luke) that are also found in the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas. I say "source" because the Gospels were written at least 20 years after the events and they rely on the same sources (Q) occasionally, and sometimes the Gospels rely on other sources (e.g., John depending on Mark and not Q). The simplest and oldest source most likely points to a historical Jesus.

EDIT: I meant Gospel of Peter. Sorry.

 

[JerryL]

And....he was no professor of Hebrew Studies or History. Klausner therefore is more qualified in my mind.

You've entirely missed the point, but that gets addressed later in this thread so I'll not reiterate it.

Well then, why would anyone accept anyone else's answer about anything on this forum? Do you not take the word of scholars?

You listen to their support for their answer and evaluate it, either finding it compelling or not.

I am an expert on more than one subject; but it would generally be a mistake to accept something you could prove wrong on one of those subjects because I said so.

I am merely addressing a question about "hanging" as opposed to crucifixion. What would be a sufficient answer then? And where would the reference or 'proof' of that answer lie?

Actually, it says he was stoned... then hung.

1. Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)

2. Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)

3. External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).

Name a source you've cited which passes these tests.

Why discuss MOST of the topics on this forum? Are we only interested in opinion?

That would be beyond the scope of this thread.

But, I do think there is enough proof to believe with reasonable certainty that Jesus did live on earth.

Do you have any other than the century-later references to Christians and the mention of people being named Yeshu (a common name)?

To me, the question that will always be left to faith is not if Jesus lived, but if we was actually God. We will never be able to prove beyond a doubt that he was in fact God.

Perhaps you should start a topic on that.

Archaeological records (Dead Sea Scrolls) and fufilled prophecy come to mind right off the bat. And there are secular writings that confirm much in the bible as well.

The dead sea scrolls are simply early copies of biblical texts. I don't dispute the existance of a Bible.

Can you name a single specific and unusual prophecy which can be confirmed to have been made before the prophecied event, and for which the event can be verfied to have happend? I can name a dozen that did not.

 

[linwood]

I think if I had a week or so just for this question, I could give it a good run.

I bet you could.

But I`m not going to have that debate again just yet.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well then, why would anyone accept anyone else's answer about anything on this forum? Do you not take the word of scholars?

I think appealing to scholarship is a very good practice, but it is not the same practice as cherry-picking and quote mining. In my opinion, Klausner was a Zionist engaged in apologetics and, as such, far less credible than someone like Crossan or Vermes. But perhaps I'm wrong. Show us. Outline his argument(s) and suggest his evidence. I don't think you can do so because I don't think you ever took the time to read his work - and I find that unethical.

 

[linwood]

But, I do think there is enough proof to believe with reasonable certainty that Jesus did live on earth. To me, the question that will always be left to faith is not if Jesus lived, but if we was actually God. We will never be able to prove beyond a doubt that he was in fact God.

I happen to believe the best evidence of a historical Jesus is Christianity itself.

While it isn`t falsifiable nor the only rational possibility someone had to start it.

My personal thoughts are that I just don`t know so I won`t ever say "There was no historical Jesus."

 

[JerryL]

I was referring to material that concerns the historical Jesus in Q and Gospel sources (independent sources for John and Luke) that are also found in the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas. I say "source" because the Gospels were written at least 20 years after the events and they rely on the same sources (Q) occasionally, and sometimes the Gospels rely on other sources (e.g., John depending on Mark and not Q). The simplest and oldest source most likely points to a historical Jesus.

My understanding is that Luke was written by Thomas, the deciple of Paul (Col 4:14; 2Tim 4:11; Phlm 1:24), and that Paul referred to it as "his gospel".

 

[Quiddity]

Worthwhile to read for those interested:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Worthwhile to read for those interested:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html

Good find. I do, however, think that Josephus on James, Wells on the saying traditions, the unlikelihood that the Jerusalem sect was a fabrication, and the existence of the Ebionites make a historical Jesus more likely than not.

 

[Mister_T]

Sure ...

The works of Josephus provide crucial information about the First Jewish-Roman War. They are also important literary source for understanding the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls and post-Second Temple Judaism. Josephan scholarship in the 19th and early 20th century became focused on Josephus' relationship to the sect of the Pharisees. He was consistently portrayed as a member of the sect and viewed as a villanous traitor to his own nation - a view which became known in Josephan studies as the classical conception. In the mid 20th century, this view was challenged by a new generation of scholars who fomulated the modern conception of Josephus, still considering him a Pharisee but restoring his reputation in part as patriot and a historian of some standing. Recent scholarship since 1990 has sought to move scholarly perceptions forward by demonstrating that Josephus was not a Pharisee but an orthodox Aristocrat-Priest who became part of the Temple establishment as a matter of deference and not willing association (Cf. Steve Mason, Todd Beall, and Ernst Gerlach).


- Wikipedia

In sum, then, the Pharisees are not of great interest to Josephus in his thirty volumes of writing. Certainly they do not have the central place of the priestly aristocracy, which is inextricably linked with the admirable Judean constitution throughout all his works. There is no evidence that he identified with the Pharisees in any way. On the contrary, in his world of values they appear on the wrong side entirely. They are for him popular teachers who have the confidence of the masses. But this is no recommendation. He is an unabashed elitist, who thinks that the hereditary priestly aristocracy are the ones properly charged with teaching and caring for the masses. As for many ancient writers, for Josephus the masses are a rudderless, impetuous mob that can be easily led by whoever makes the most convincing appeal to them. Josephus wishes that the aristocrats were always successful in managing their populace, but he willingly concedes that both in the context of war and otherwise, this has not always been the case.

Although he is quite willing to acknowledge the Pharisees’ place within Judean culture as a “philosophical school,” the only preference Josephus exhibits among these groups is for the Essenes: their philosophy, disciplined way of life, and actual behavior in Judean history all earn his compliments—consistently. His glowing description of them in War 2.119-61 closely matches his portrait of general Judean values in Apion 2.146-96. Whenever the Pharisees, by contrast, appear as actors in the narrative, it is almost invariably to wield their influence for self-serving and socially disruptive ends. Josephus expresses a nearly consistent antipathy for all popular leaders or demagogues. John the Baptist [Ant. 18.111-14] is a curious exception, possibly because of his early death and Josephus’s desire to expose the sordid Herodian marriages involved. Whereas other such leaders come and go in the narrative, however, the Pharisees receive more of his venom because they have persevered as a group of popular leaders from Hasmonean times to his own.

Once we abandon any connection between Josephus and the Pharisees, a number of benefits follow. Most importantly, we can read him with a new curiosity and openness, without the blinkers provided by a presumed religious or philosophical affiliation. We no longer need to say, when we read his accounts of afterlife and judgment, for example, that he must really mean something else (bodily resurrection), which he has Hellenized. When he talks about the “ancestral traditions” of the Judeans, we can now see that these are quite parallel to the ancestral traditions of other cultures and have nothing to do with the special “traditions of the fathers” recognized by the Pharisees only. In general, we find in Josephus a statesman very much like other statesmen of the Greek-speaking eastern Mediterranean, wrestling with the same sorts of questions in the same sort of language, trying to find a place for his people in a perilous world subject to Roman domination.

It is perhaps natural to ask: If Josephus was not (and did not claim to be) a Pharisee, then what was he? To which group did he belong? To answer such a question we need first, however, to reject the old and invalid assumption that all ancient Judeans belonged to one of the three schools mentioned by Josephus. This assumption was the basis for much scholarly nonsense in the past—for example, identifying texts as Pharisaic or anti-Pharisaic, Sadducean, or even Essene (in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls) because of certain statements in them viewed more less in isolation. This assumption presumably lay behind Thackeray’s rendering of Life 9, cited above: whereas Josephus speaks of the three schools “among us” (par’ hemin) Thackeray wrote of the sects into which “our nation is divided.” Since the work of Morton Smith and especially Jacob Neusner from the 1950s onward, we have come to realize that ancient Judean culture offered many sorts of “school” affiliation, whether with the dominant parties or with individual teachers (e.g., Bannus, John the Baptist, Jesus, Theudas), and also non-affiliation. There is no reason to assume that all or most Judeans, especially those of the aristocratic élite, had a particular school affiliation.

Indeed, in the larger Greco-Roman world with which Josephus so consistently compares his own culture, it would have been remarkable to find a public leader expressing devotion to one single philosophical school. As we have seen, it was considered praiseworthy for a man to learn something of all the major philosophies, to have a philosophical perspective that would serve him well in handling the vicissitudes of life. He should know a basic philosophical vocabulary and try to live as philosophers recommended, which is to say simply, with dignity, fearlessly, and without need of luxury or favor. Josephus illustrates this model when he parades his youthful philosophical preparation. But ongoing devotion to one school smacked of fanaticism and would therefore be deeply suspect in a mature man who was active in public life. True to form, Josephus presents himself as just such a man, the embodiment of his people, free from any zealous devotion to one school.

- Flavius Josephus and the Pharisees
​

.

Wikipedia...as a resource? I won't even go there.

Here's the credentials of your guy

Dr. Stephen Mason is a psychologist living in Southern California. He is a former university professor, syndicated columnist, talk radio show host and comedy writer for Joan Rivers. He is a member of MENSA, a recipient of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal's Citizen Sane award, and once appeared as a centerfold in Playgirl magazine. Currently, he serves as Media Affairs Director of The Lifestyles Organization. Address comments and column suggestions to him directly at [email protected].


Compare to the credentials of my guy

Edwin M. Yamauchi P.H.D. from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He is considered one of the country's leading experts in ancient history. He has a bachelor's degree in Hebrew and Hellenistics, a masters and a doctorate degree in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University. He has been awarded eight fellowships, from the Rutgers Research Council, National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society and others. He has studied 22 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Egytian, Russian, Syriac, Ugaritic, and even Commanche. He has delivered 71 papers before learned societies: lectured at more than 100 seminars, universities, and colleges, including Yale, Princeton, and Cornell. He served as chairman and then president of the Institute for Biblical research and president of the Conference on Faith and History and published 80 articles in 37 scholarly journals. In 1968 he participated in the first excavations of the Herodian temple in Jerusalem, revealing evidence of the temple's destruction in 70 A.D. Archaeology has been the them in several of his books including The Stones and Scriptures, The Scriptures and Archaeology, and The World of the First Christians..........Yea...........that's like asking a McDonald's fry cook to construct me a house.

Sorry man. Knowledge is power. And your guy doesn't hold a candle to my guy and that's blatently obvious.

He's wrong

 

[linwood]

Here's the credentials of your guy

Compare to the credentials of my guy

Sorry man. Knowledge is power. And your guy doesn't hold a candle to my guy and that's blatently obvious.

Dear lord we are having a battle of scholars.

:biglaugh:

 

[Quiddity]

Dear lord we are having a battle of scholars.

:biglaugh:

Mine is the best........by far...:biglaugh:
He's got a degree in everything and has no bias...:biglaugh: