• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proof that Jesus lived?

Bangbang

Active Member
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Bangbang said:
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
The speculation that none of the accounts of Jesus are first-hand accounts is indefensible, so this fails its own test.

EDIT: Conclusions must match evidence. Even if we completely reject everything that the Gospels and extra-biblical sources say about Jesus, then we are left with no sources and therefore have an argument from silence because we have no evidence. If we have no evidence, we have no conclusions.
 

Bangbang

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
The speculation that none of the accounts of Jesus are first-hand accounts is indefensible, so this fails its own test.
OH SHUT UP!!!:biglaugh:
 

Ernesto

Member
Bangbang said:
I am sure this has been discussed and maybe you can point me to the thread....but is there any proof outside the Bible that Jesus lived?
You must remember that if there is proof of Jesus' existence outside the Bible (and I think there is), it still doesn't prove that he performed miracles or that he was the son of God and died 'for our sins'. There is no proof for these things.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jayhawker Soule said:
Which account is 1st hand?
To be perfectly honest, the critical methodology for locating the historical Jesus is going to be under scrutiny for the forseeable future. The general consensus in critical biblical scholarship is that there was a historical Jesus. Simply put, all four Gospels and even some of the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter do preserve (according to the general consensus view - there are tons of people who study this) first hand accounts of Jesus. Not many people reject the historicity of Jesus because to do so they must argue from silence. The only way to have conclusions that match evidence is to manipulate the sources to what seems to be the most reliable historical source.
 

Bangbang

Active Member
Ernesto said:
You must remember that if there is proof of Jesus' existence outside the Bible (and I think there is), it still doesn't prove that he performed miracles or that he was the son of God and died 'for our sins'. There is no proof for these things.
I realize that and agree. The belief is based on faith alone.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
To be perfectly honest, you avoided the question. You state:
Simply put, all four Gospels and even some of the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter do preserve (according to the general consensus view - there are tons of people who study this) first hand accounts of Jesus.​
But this is simply semantic sleight of hand, since what is preserved is not some 1st hand account but, rather, a "sayings tradition", with "Q", for example, dated anywhere from 40 to 80 CE and gThom a full decade later. While I think that Wells makes a good point regarding these sayings, to label them 1st hand accounts is simply wishful thinking.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jayhawker Soule said:
To be perfectly honest, you avoided the question. You state:
Simply put, all four Gospels and even some of the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter do preserve (according to the general consensus view - there are tons of people who study this) first hand accounts of Jesus.​
But this is simply semantic sleight of hand, since what is preserved is not some 1st hand account but, rather, a "sayings tradition", with "Q", for example, dated anywhere from 40 to 80 CE and gThom a full decade later. While I think that Wells makes a good point regarding these sayings, to label them 1st hand accounts is simply wishful thinking.
I realized that I was not clear after I posted.

To be perfectly honest, the critical methodology for locating the historical Jesus is going to be under scrutiny for the forseeable future.

This means that there is no critical apparatus available to me by which I can say "this is a first-hand account." However, there is nothing to suggest that none of the Gospel accounts preserve first hand accounts, so I did not "label them 1st hand accounts," but merely said that the speculation that none of the accounts of Jesus are first-hand accounts is indefensible, so this fails its own test, which matches the evidence.

EDIT: OK, I see my mistake. I've seen quite a few conclude that there are genuine sayings of Jesus in the NT that preserve or point to first hand accounts, but everything is disputed.

EDIT #2: There might be wishful thinking on both sides of the issue. The evidence can go either way. We know that the sources are very old, and 30 years later is certainly early enough to be a first hand account, and particularly if it has been in established oral tradition. For some people, it's nice to imagine that Jesus never existed. For others, it is nice to think just the opposite and perhaps entertain the idea that Jesus actually said some of the things in the NT. I don't think that it is far-fetched that Jesus lived and said some stuff.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
angellous_evangellous said:
EDIT: OK, I see my mistake. I've seen quite a few conclude that there are genuine sayings of Jesus in the NT that preserve or point to first hand accounts, but everything is disputed.
*cough.....cough*....The Jesus Seminar....
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
angellous_evangellous said:
I... the speculation that none of the accounts of Jesus are first-hand accounts is indefensible, so this fails its own test, which matches the evidence.
Can you explain why it's indefensible.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jayhawker Soule said:
Can you explain why it's indefensible.
Conclusions must match evidence. Even if we completely reject everything that the Gospels and extra-biblical sources say about Jesus, then we are left with no sources and therefore have an argument from silence because we have no evidence. If we have no evidence, we have no conclusions.

EDIT: For example:

Jayhawker Soule said:
See the Early Evidence. The silence is compelling.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jayhawker Soule said:
Contrary to popular belief, an argument from silence is evidence if the silence is unexpected.
In this case, silence is expected. Almost all of the historians listed were in Rome and therefore we should expect silence concerning what the consensus view of the historical Jesus was: a poor Palestinian teacher of the Hebrew Bible. Also, the Romans had a very low view of Christianity (eg, persecutions), so we should not expect them to realize the importance of Christianity as a religious movement. This does match the evidence.

EDIT: Christianity was not a major world religion until the third century. We should not expect people with a bias against Christianity to write about its poor founder (if indeed Jesus was the founder of Christianity is disputed) during the second century, and if they wrote about it in the third century, people would argue that it's too late. In fact, your list claims that it is important because it lists people close to the time of Christ; who in fact could not have forseen the significance of the historical Jesus.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Jayhawker Soule said:
Contrary to popular belief, an argument from silence is evidence if the silence is unexpected.
Was it expected in your opinion? If so, why?
 

Abram

Abraham
It seems no matter what proof anyone comes up with, whether a Christian writer or not, it just gets explained away. So if there is no proof of Jesus and in your eyes he just a myth, where did it come from? Who thought up this story that has the ability to withstand scrutiny for 2000 years? and who knows how many more? Who is this man Jesus, from who's mind was he created? Seems to me Christianity couldn't just be thought up, on the cuff as you go stuff. Seems that it is interwoven in the fabric of our life's. Some say he may not exist, yet that he would have been a great man. It's all a myth, yet I still abide by some of his commands?
 
Top