corroborating evidence. No, the evidence for a historical
Jesus is not particularly strong, but it is certainly on
a par with a number of other things you will learn as
"fact" in any history class.

-jc

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 7 Dec 2005 08:04:16 -0800, "jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 7 Dec 2005 06:26:29 -0800, "jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

Richard Smol wrote:

Gary wrote:

Was Jesus born in AD 0?

Was he born at all? All evidence is against that claim.

RS

What evidence do you have that a Jesus (or Yeshua or Joshua) of
Nazareth, born of a woman named Mary and called the son of a carpenter
named Joseph, was NOT born?

Last time I checked, one did not need evidence for something
NOT happening.

Nevertheless, there is reasonable evidence that a historical figure
named Jesus existed and that he preached and had followers,
if only because there were enough such people at that time that
it would have been silly to make one up.

Funny how it's never provided.

The usual thing is a rationalisation that Jesus was a common name,
there were lots of itinerant preachers and (at least one because it's
such a common name) one of them was probably called Jesus.

Which is hardly evidence.

Which one of fthese itinerant preachers called JEsus about whom
nothingis known?

Indeed, many Christians are surprized how little corroborating
evidence there is for the life of Christ. Wikipedia has a
fairly good and well referenced article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
The bottom line is that while there is no rock solid contemporary
reference to Christ himself, there is pretty strong evidence of
*Christians* within a decade or so after his death, so it's hard -
but not entirely impossible - to believe they were rallying around
an entirely fictitious figure.

On the other hand, this is the nature of much of ancient
history. Many historical figures and events are known only
through scant second and third hand sources. Many things
that we accept without question - particularly details of the
lives of famous people - would not hold up under intense
scrutiny. For example, there is little doubt that Socrates
existed, but there is almost no detail of his life about which
there is absolute certainty.

But nobody cares about that. It is the ideas that cound. If it had
been somebody else it wouldn't matter.

The same could be said for most people and events in history,
yet somehow historians persist in believing that it's important
to figure out what actually happened. Go figure.

But all the other historical figures are conclusions from evidence.

Jesus isn't.

There are precious few historical "facts" prior to widespread
use of the printing press that would hold up to modern
legal standards of proof.

The Straight Dope did a pretty nice summary of modern
(secular) scholarship regarding the origin of the New Testament,
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
and there seems to be a consensus (which is all ANY
history is) that the Gospel of John was likely written by
someone who either knew Jesus or had close second hand
knowledge, and it's widely held that Mark was tranlated
from an older writing, probably by someone who knew Jesus.

If this standard of evidence sounds shaky to you, then ancient
history is probably not a good field to go into.

Except of course the standard is conclusion from evidence, not trying
to rationalise a belief into reality.

You have a tidy view of how history works, which is
often wrong, particularly with regard to ancient
history. Much of what we know
about the ancient world began with legends, and
historians have used these as a starting point to sort out
fact from fiction, just as they have with Jesus. If you
go back far enough, the line between history and myth
blurs, and the only way to sort out the truth is to look for
corroborating evidence. No, the evidence for a historical
Jesus is not particularly strong, but it is certainly on
a par with a number of other things you will learn as
"fact" in any history class.

Richard Smol wrote:
<snip to>

There is far more evidence that Jesus, a man and leader of a religious
movement, existed than there is that Socrates did...or that PLATO did,
for that matter. Yet you have no problem accepting that.

There is ample evidence Plato or Socrates existed.

Yeah? What? What evidence is there for Socrates that is better than, or
different from, evidence for the existance of Jesus?

Do NOT confuse evidence for the existance of Jesus, a man and leader of
a religious group, with evidence that any of the supernatural things
claimed about him are true.

Heck, they even
wrote their own stuff,

Socrates did not. All we have of what Socrates may have thought comes
from Plato...and most of that is Plato's words put in Socrates' mouth.

which can't be said of this Jesus character of
whom we only have hearsay by untrustworthy sources.

The only thing we know of Socrates is what Plato said about him.

Socrates never wrote a blessed thing down. He didn't believe in it. So,
if you have any other evidence that Socrates ever existed, I'd like to
know about it.

Remember,
accepting the idea that there was a real Jesus, or Yeshua, does not
prove that he was divine.

But if someone has never even been shown to exist, it useless to wonder
whether he was divine or not.

But you aren't claiming that there isn't proof that he existed. You are
claiming that he didn't exist, period. I am claiming that (and you will
note that I am being VERY careful to keep any claims about his divinity
OUT of this discussion) it is far more likely that he did exist than
that he did not.

The reasons for claiming this are:

1. We have writings from those who claim to have known him.

2. There is corroboration from outside biblical writings that such a
leader did indeed exist and was killed.

3. The pattern of the early Christian church is that of a classic
cult...a religious group springing up around a single charismatic
leader. It does not follow the pattern of a gradually occuring religion
based around a deity placed somewhere back in time, unknowable and
untouchable. In fact, the pattern of the early church is such that, if
there were NOT such a leader at the center, it would be unique in human
history.

Therefore, I submit that it is more likely that Jesus (or Yeshua or
Joshua) existed than that he did not.

I further submit that it is really illogical to demand the sort of
extraordinary proof of the mere existance of such a leader that you
demand of the existance of a deity..and that is what you are doing.

Diana

<snip to end>

There is ample evidence Plato or Socrates existed.

Yeah? What? What evidence is there for Socrates that is better than, or
different from, evidence for the existance of Jesus?

Do NOT confuse evidence for the existance of Jesus, a man and leader of
a religious group, with evidence that any of the supernatural things
claimed about him are true.

Heck, they even wrote their own stuff,

Socrates did not. All we have of what Socrates may have thought comes
from Plato...and most of that is Plato's words put in Socrates' mouth.

which can't be said of this Jesus character of
whom we only have hearsay by untrustworthy sources.

The only thing we know of Socrates is what Plato said about him.

Socrates never wrote a blessed thing down. He didn't believe in it. So,
if you have any other evidence that Socrates ever existed, I'd like to
know about it.

Remember, accepting the idea that there was a real Jesus,
or Yeshua, does not prove that he was divine.

But if someone has never even been shown to exist, it useless to wonder
whether he was divine or not.

But you aren't claiming that there isn't proof that he existed. You are
claiming that he didn't exist, period. I am claiming that (and you will
note that I am being VERY careful to keep any claims about his divinity
OUT of this discussion) it is far more likely that he did exist than
that he did not.

I further submit that it is really illogical to demand the sort of
extraordinary proof of the mere existance of such a leader that you
demand of the existance of a deity..and that is what you are doing.