But by that same token we could then say there is no evidence that Julius Caesar or Augustus existed either. Roman historians - and Roman histories that survived antiquity and still exist in the modern age - are never going to live up to our standards of evidence and/or scholarship.
I say it is evidence. If you want to argue it is not "proof", that is a different story.
Yes we can, because there is contemporary evidence of Julius Caesar's life, and Augustus's life. Contemporary, concrete evidence. Whereas in the case of Jesus there is none. Zilch. Not one mention of him, including no mention of him in the comprehensive 'Histories' of the period by Josephus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
You would have thought that someone, somewhere would have noticed Jesus at the time of his supposed existence, right? But there was no mention of him. And many people believe he was simply an invention by certain Christian sects, an invention based largely on the already ancient Mediterranean mystery religions which recognized a similar, almost identical figure: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=144037&hilit=+tacitus
Still, It makes perfect sense why Americans living in the 21st Century would base their beliefs and outlook on life on 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult, right? :think:
Whatever gets you through the day.
Again, this is not getting me through the day. I am not religious in any way. I just don't agree that there is "zero" evidence Jesus existed. It seems there is at least one source. To me that does not equal zero.
Again, this is not getting me through the day. I am not religious in any way. I just don't agree that there is "zero" evidence Jesus existed. It seems there is at least one source. To me that does not equal zero.
And what source would that be? I've already shown that Tacitus used second-hand hearsay, and was written at least 70 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Also, the first copy of the book by Tacitus that contains mention of Jesus was published in the 11th century, and it's possible the mention of Jesus contained in it was added by the early Church scribes desperate to try and prove the existence of Jesus due to there being zero evidence from any other source.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... jesus.html
Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.
Again, this is not getting me through the day. I am not religious in any way. I just don't agree that there is "zero" evidence Jesus existed. It seems there is at least one source. To me that does not equal zero.
And what source would that be? I've already shown that Tacitus used second-hand hearsay, and was written at least 70 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Also, the first copy of the book by Tacitus that contains mention of Jesus was published in the 11th century, and it's possible the mention of Jesus contained in it was added by the early Church scribes desperate to try and prove the existence of Jesus due to there being zero evidence from any other source.
So what evidence do you have?
I'm not particularly concerned what Tacitus used for a source. Remember, this all started when you claimed his account had been proven a fraud. When that turned out to not be true you changed tactics. I don't know whether the guy lived or not, but saying there is zero evidence is just not true. There might be little evidence, and that evidence might be flimsy, and it may not equal proof, but there is not zero evidence.
I believe he existed because I was taught of his existence at a young age, as I grew older my beliefs were confirmed by most scholars and historians. Its "easy" for me to believe since it was drilled into my young mind and since I am neither a scholar nor historian I'll take their word on him.
Remember, this all started when you claimed his account had been proven a fraud. When that turned out to not be true you changed tactics.
I think your mind's playing tricks on you. I've already explained my original comment about the mention of Jesus in Tacitus being a fraud, and how I initially thought you were referring to work of Josephus. No big deal. I then corrected it and pointed out that the mention in Tacitus is not evidence anyway, and was written at least 70 years after Jesus death, e.t.c - read my post above.
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.
saying there is zero evidence is just not true. There might be little evidence, and that evidence might be flimsy, and it may not equal proof, but there is not zero evidence.
There is zero evidence. And if you have any then go ahead and provide it, instead of just talking about it.
I believe he existed because I was taught of his existence at a young age, as I grew older my beliefs were confirmed by most scholars and historians. Its "easy" for me to believe since it was drilled into my young mind and since I am neither a scholar nor historian I'll take their word on him.
thanks be to thee, my lord jesus christ
I thought you were talking about Santa Claus there for a second.
I believe he existed because I was taught of his existence at a young age, as I grew older my beliefs were confirmed by most scholars and historians. Its "easy" for me to believe since it was drilled into my young mind and since I am neither a scholar nor historian I'll take their word on him.
thanks be to thee, my lord jesus christ
I thought you were talking about Santa Claus there for a second.
i can see that...until "most scholars and historians"
Remember, this all started when you claimed his account had been proven a fraud. When that turned out to not be true you changed tactics.
I think your mind's playing tricks on you. I've already explained my original comment about the mention of Jesus in Tacitus being a fraud, and how I initially thought you were referring to work of Josephus. No big deal. I then corrected it and pointed out that the mention in Tacitus is not evidence anyway, and was written at least 70 years after Jesus death, e.t.c - read my post above.
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.
saying there is zero evidence is just not true. There might be little evidence, and that evidence might be flimsy, and it may not equal proof, but there is not zero evidence.
There is zero evidence. And if you have any then go ahead and provide it, instead of just talking about it.
I could repost the link to Tacitus, then you could say it is not evidence, then I could say you are wrong, then you could again say whatever gets me through the day, or we could just agree to disagree. I know what my vote goes to.
I could repost the link to Tacitus, then you could say it is not evidence, then I could say you are wrong, then you could again say whatever gets me through the day, or we could just agree to disagree. I know what my vote goes to.
Except I didn't just say you are wrong. I provided evidence by way of links and sources. Whereas you've done nothing except claim that there's evidence for the existence of Jesus without providing any.
Second-hand hearsay written at least 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.
I could repost the link to Tacitus, then you could say it is not evidence, then I could say you are wrong, then you could again say whatever gets me through the day, or we could just agree to disagree. I know what my vote goes to.
Except I didn't just say you are wrong. I provided evidence by way of links and sources. Whereas you've done nothing except claim that there's evidence for the existence of Jesus without providing any.
Second-hand hearsay written at least 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.
No, it doesn't constitute proof. Proof and evidence are not always the same thing.
Maybe people should spend less time indulging the belief system of a 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult, and pay more attention to the World around them, and to the Earth under their feet, instead.
i can see that...until "most scholars and historians"
And how did these so-called scholars and historians convince you of his existence in the absence of any evidence?
im like most other americans "gullible and naive"... if i see that most experts, scholars and historians take a position, then im likely to take that same position regardless of the specifics. if it was the position of most scholars and historians that santa exists or existed, yes then i would believe in santa clause.
not that wiki is the be all end all but it is worth referencing
So, did Jesus really exist? With his new book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, historian and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, wanted to provide solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
"I wanted to approach this question as an historian to see whether that's right or not," Ehrman tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.
The answer is straightforward and widely accepted among scholars of all faiths, but Ehrman says there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists.
"It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are," Ehrman says. "Historically, they've been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some parts of the West – in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed," he says.
Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible, Ehrman says. According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.
"Most importantly," he explains, "these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again."
In his book, Ehrman marshals all of the evidence proving the existence of Jesus, including the writings of the apostle Paul.
"Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed," he says.
In Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman builds a technical argument and shows that one of the reasons for knowing that Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome.
"The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies – and so if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah," he says. "You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies."
So Jesus did exist, but who was he? Ehrman says when historians focus on the life of Jesus, they discover a Jesus who is completely different from the one portrayed by popular culture or by religious texts.
"The mythicists have some right things to say," Ehrman says. "The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."
When Raz asks Ehrman about his relationship to Jesus, Ehrman says that most of it is very historical but that Jesus teaches us valuable lessons.
"Jesus' teachings of love, and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives," he says. "On the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus and I try to model my life on them, even though I don't agree with the apocalyptic framework in which they were put."
Once again, the only supposed evidence is the mention of his name in Josephus - which was found to have been a later interpolation by the early Church Fathers, Tacitus - second-hand evidence written at least 70 years after the supposed death of Jesus, and the Talmud - which tell us that a man called Yeshu existed and had five disciples called Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.
http://new.exchristian.net/2011/08/hist ... jesus.html
The fact of the matter is that not a single historian, follower or scribe during the time when Jesus was alleged to have lived, performing miracles and generally upsetting the powers that be with the authority of God, makes any mention of him whatsoever. Given that he is alleged to have attracted great multitudes, argued and debated with the religious and political leaders of his time and healed the sick in great numbers it is utterly staggering that not a single reference can be found of this allegedly divine prophet who not only acted with the authority of God but was alleged to be God.
...In summary, the claims about Jesus are as reliable as the claims about Prometheus, Hercules or Wotan and the entire tale is the evidentiary equivalent of Humpty Dumpty and Grandfather Smurf. Of course, if the believers wishes to maintain that an eccentric Jewish preacher existed during the early 1st century CE and that he constitutes their best chance at a fulfilled life, then by all means let them cling to this bizarre insistence. However, let us desist from the false claim that faith can be justified, that half truths and misrepresentations are a basis to maintain the cult of the Nazareen. After all, if there were evidence for a particular religious tradition, “faith” would become obsolete.
Unfortunately, those who believe without evidence or reason cannot be challenged in their beliefs with evidence and reason, and one can only be liberated from this primitive indoctrination by the personal choice to consider all matters of existence based on reason and evidence, not to justify one’s preconceptions and wish-thinking but in an earnest quest for what is true. For as Carl Sagan noted, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7] While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity[8][9][10][11] most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][5][6][7] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[33][34] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines.[5] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.[8][9][10][11]
Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[30][11]
I could repost the link to Tacitus, then you could say it is not evidence, then I could say you are wrong, then you could again say whatever gets me through the day, or we could just agree to disagree. I know what my vote goes to.
Except I didn't just say you are wrong. I provided evidence by way of links and sources. Whereas you've done nothing except claim that there's evidence for the existence of Jesus without providing any.
Second-hand hearsay written at least 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.
No, it doesn't constitute proof. Proof and evidence are not always the same thing.
arguing semantics isn't going to get this anywhere. but in either case, in my world, second hand hearsay 70 years after the fact does not constitute evidence, nor proof, not even believable gossip.
If I told Byrnzie that I saw Eddie Vedder sharing an intimate moment with Jeb Bush in 1984 and then he told that to you, would you consider that evidence? no, you'd laugh and call it nonsense.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up." -Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
"Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the historical Jesus. . . and that sorting out of "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence." -Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
"Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it." -C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic
"Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth." -Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
No, it doesn't constitute proof. Proof and evidence are not always the same thing.
arguing semantics isn't going to get this anywhere. but in either case, in my world, second hand hearsay 70 years after the fact does not constitute evidence, nor proof, not even believable gossip.
If I told Byrnzie that I saw Eddie Vedder sharing an intimate moment with Jeb Bush in 1984 and then he told that to you, would you consider that evidence? no, you'd laugh and call it nonsense.
But it isn't a semantic argument. It is an indisputable fact - evidence and proof are not the same thing. I understand what you are saying about hearsay, but we are talking about 2000 year old events and documents. We don't always have the benefit of a perfect source. In the case of your Eddie example, we have both personally witnessed his words, deeds and actions. None of us here can say the same about Jesus, or Caesar, or Antony, or Augustus. All we can go on is what we have. And regardless of whether or not Jesus existed or not, early Christians did exist and they were a persecuted cult. So doesn't it stand to reason that while they were being thrown to the lions, many of their possessions, writings, inscriptions, etc. were being confiscated, burned or otherwise destroyed? Tacitus may be the best we have to go on today but that in no way means there never existed a better source.
I wouldn't argue with someone who stated, "There is no proof Jesus existed." But anyone who insists there is no evidence, that I disagree with.
Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case.Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
for something to be concluded as being evidence, it must be presumed to be true. so, in closing, hearsay from a man 70 years after the fact is NOT evidence.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case.Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
for something to be concluded as being evidence, it must be presumed to be true. so, in closing, hearsay from a man 70 years after the fact is NOT evidence.
There are 2.1 billion Christians worldwide who DO presume it to be true.
Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case.Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
for something to be concluded as being evidence, it must be presumed to be true. so, in closing, hearsay from a man 70 years after the fact is NOT evidence.
There are 2.1 billion Christians worldwide who DO presume it to be true.
so? presuming something to be true doesn't make it true. everyone on earth used to think the world was flat. didn't make it flat, did it?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
So, did Jesus really exist? With his new book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, historian and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, wanted to provide solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
"I wanted to approach this question as an historian to see whether that's right or not," Ehrman tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.
The answer is straightforward and widely accepted among scholars of all faiths, but Ehrman says there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists.
"It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are," Ehrman says. "Historically, they've been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some parts of the West – in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed," he says.
Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible, Ehrman says. According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.
"Most importantly," he explains, "these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again."
In his book, Ehrman marshals all of the evidence proving the existence of Jesus, including the writings of the apostle Paul.
"Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed," he says.
In Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman builds a technical argument and shows that one of the reasons for knowing that Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome.
"The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies – and so if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah," he says. "You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies."
So Jesus did exist, but who was he? Ehrman says when historians focus on the life of Jesus, they discover a Jesus who is completely different from the one portrayed by popular culture or by religious texts.
"The mythicists have some right things to say," Ehrman says. "The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."
When Raz asks Ehrman about his relationship to Jesus, Ehrman says that most of it is very historical but that Jesus teaches us valuable lessons.
"Jesus' teachings of love, and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives," he says. "On the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus and I try to model my life on them, even though I don't agree with the apocalyptic framework in which they were put."
Really? This is what they are going with? "Jesus must have been a real guy because the made up story doesn't make sense, and some guy who wrote some stuff down 100 years later knew the brother of a guy that knew a guy." Really?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case.Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
for something to be concluded as being evidence, it must be presumed to be true. so, in closing, hearsay from a man 70 years after the fact is NOT evidence.
There are 2.1 billion Christians worldwide who DO presume it to be true.
so? presuming something to be true doesn't make it true. everyone on earth used to think the world was flat. didn't make it flat, did it?
So?
for something to be concluded as being evidence, it must be presumed to be true.
people believe things without see them..im ok with that...its in human nature..
and when you believe in God,or what ever godlike, power,energy ,people,whatever you call it ,maybe u believe cos u need to believe in something,and no need to search it..
not all are on links on internet or written at books...
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
you can twist it any way you want, but obviously presumed to be true has to have some weight behind it, not just a fairy tale.
every kid in the world presumes santa to be true, so does that make it real? no. fictional characters don't count in "presumed to be true".
It seems like you have to presume it true for it to have any weight behind it, to be honest. Your own criteria said something needed to be presumed true to be considered as evidence. 2.1 billion Christians do presume it to be true, but not you, so it is not presumed to be true. Right...
Again, I don't have a horse in this race. Maybe Jesus existed and maybe he didn't. But I am rather amazed that the anti-Jesus crowd in this thread is as zealous in their belief as you would expect a religious zealot to be .
Comments
I wonder if Jesus would have approved of Reagan committing genocide in Latin America?
Again, this is not getting me through the day. I am not religious in any way. I just don't agree that there is "zero" evidence Jesus existed. It seems there is at least one source. To me that does not equal zero.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And what source would that be? I've already shown that Tacitus used second-hand hearsay, and was written at least 70 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Also, the first copy of the book by Tacitus that contains mention of Jesus was published in the 11th century, and it's possible the mention of Jesus contained in it was added by the early Church scribes desperate to try and prove the existence of Jesus due to there being zero evidence from any other source.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... jesus.html
Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.
So what evidence do you have?
I'm not particularly concerned what Tacitus used for a source. Remember, this all started when you claimed his account had been proven a fraud. When that turned out to not be true you changed tactics. I don't know whether the guy lived or not, but saying there is zero evidence is just not true. There might be little evidence, and that evidence might be flimsy, and it may not equal proof, but there is not zero evidence.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
thanks be to thee, my lord jesus christ
I think your mind's playing tricks on you. I've already explained my original comment about the mention of Jesus in Tacitus being a fraud, and how I initially thought you were referring to work of Josephus. No big deal. I then corrected it and pointed out that the mention in Tacitus is not evidence anyway, and was written at least 70 years after Jesus death, e.t.c - read my post above.
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.
There is zero evidence. And if you have any then go ahead and provide it, instead of just talking about it.
I thought you were talking about Santa Claus there for a second.
i can see that...until "most scholars and historians"
I could repost the link to Tacitus, then you could say it is not evidence, then I could say you are wrong, then you could again say whatever gets me through the day, or we could just agree to disagree. I know what my vote goes to.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And how did these so-called scholars and historians convince you of his existence in the absence of any evidence?
Except I didn't just say you are wrong. I provided evidence by way of links and sources. Whereas you've done nothing except claim that there's evidence for the existence of Jesus without providing any.
Second-hand hearsay written at least 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.
No, it doesn't constitute proof. Proof and evidence are not always the same thing.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
im like most other americans "gullible and naive"... if i see that most experts, scholars and historians take a position, then im likely to take that same position regardless of the specifics. if it was the position of most scholars and historians that santa exists or existed, yes then i would believe in santa clause.
not that wiki is the be all end all but it is worth referencing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f ... sus_Christ
"I wanted to approach this question as an historian to see whether that's right or not," Ehrman tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.
The answer is straightforward and widely accepted among scholars of all faiths, but Ehrman says there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists.
"It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are," Ehrman says. "Historically, they've been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some parts of the West – in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed," he says.
Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible, Ehrman says. According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.
"Most importantly," he explains, "these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again."
In his book, Ehrman marshals all of the evidence proving the existence of Jesus, including the writings of the apostle Paul.
"Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed," he says.
In Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman builds a technical argument and shows that one of the reasons for knowing that Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome.
"The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies – and so if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah," he says. "You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies."
So Jesus did exist, but who was he? Ehrman says when historians focus on the life of Jesus, they discover a Jesus who is completely different from the one portrayed by popular culture or by religious texts.
"The mythicists have some right things to say," Ehrman says. "The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."
When Raz asks Ehrman about his relationship to Jesus, Ehrman says that most of it is very historical but that Jesus teaches us valuable lessons.
"Jesus' teachings of love, and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives," he says. "On the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus and I try to model my life on them, even though I don't agree with the apocalyptic framework in which they were put."
Once again, the only supposed evidence is the mention of his name in Josephus - which was found to have been a later interpolation by the early Church Fathers, Tacitus - second-hand evidence written at least 70 years after the supposed death of Jesus, and the Talmud - which tell us that a man called Yeshu existed and had five disciples called Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.
http://new.exchristian.net/2011/08/hist ... jesus.html
The fact of the matter is that not a single historian, follower or scribe during the time when Jesus was alleged to have lived, performing miracles and generally upsetting the powers that be with the authority of God, makes any mention of him whatsoever. Given that he is alleged to have attracted great multitudes, argued and debated with the religious and political leaders of his time and healed the sick in great numbers it is utterly staggering that not a single reference can be found of this allegedly divine prophet who not only acted with the authority of God but was alleged to be God.
...In summary, the claims about Jesus are as reliable as the claims about Prometheus, Hercules or Wotan and the entire tale is the evidentiary equivalent of Humpty Dumpty and Grandfather Smurf. Of course, if the believers wishes to maintain that an eccentric Jewish preacher existed during the early 1st century CE and that he constitutes their best chance at a fulfilled life, then by all means let them cling to this bizarre insistence. However, let us desist from the false claim that faith can be justified, that half truths and misrepresentations are a basis to maintain the cult of the Nazareen. After all, if there were evidence for a particular religious tradition, “faith” would become obsolete.
Unfortunately, those who believe without evidence or reason cannot be challenged in their beliefs with evidence and reason, and one can only be liberated from this primitive indoctrination by the personal choice to consider all matters of existence based on reason and evidence, not to justify one’s preconceptions and wish-thinking but in an earnest quest for what is true. For as Carl Sagan noted, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7] While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity[8][9][10][11] most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][5][6][7] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[33][34] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines.[5] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.[8][9][10][11]
Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[30][11]
arguing semantics isn't going to get this anywhere. but in either case, in my world, second hand hearsay 70 years after the fact does not constitute evidence, nor proof, not even believable gossip.
If I told Byrnzie that I saw Eddie Vedder sharing an intimate moment with Jeb Bush in 1984 and then he told that to you, would you consider that evidence? no, you'd laugh and call it nonsense.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
"Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the historical Jesus. . . and that sorting out of "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence."
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
"Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."
-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic
"Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth."
-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
But it isn't a semantic argument. It is an indisputable fact - evidence and proof are not the same thing. I understand what you are saying about hearsay, but we are talking about 2000 year old events and documents. We don't always have the benefit of a perfect source. In the case of your Eddie example, we have both personally witnessed his words, deeds and actions. None of us here can say the same about Jesus, or Caesar, or Antony, or Augustus. All we can go on is what we have. And regardless of whether or not Jesus existed or not, early Christians did exist and they were a persecuted cult. So doesn't it stand to reason that while they were being thrown to the lions, many of their possessions, writings, inscriptions, etc. were being confiscated, burned or otherwise destroyed? Tacitus may be the best we have to go on today but that in no way means there never existed a better source.
I wouldn't argue with someone who stated, "There is no proof Jesus existed." But anyone who insists there is no evidence, that I disagree with.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
for something to be concluded as being evidence, it must be presumed to be true. so, in closing, hearsay from a man 70 years after the fact is NOT evidence.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
There are 2.1 billion Christians worldwide who DO presume it to be true.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
so? presuming something to be true doesn't make it true. everyone on earth used to think the world was flat. didn't make it flat, did it?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Really? This is what they are going with? "Jesus must have been a real guy because the made up story doesn't make sense, and some guy who wrote some stuff down 100 years later knew the brother of a guy that knew a guy." Really?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
So?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
every kid in the world presumes santa to be true, so does that make it real? no. fictional characters don't count in "presumed to be true".
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
and when you believe in God,or what ever godlike, power,energy ,people,whatever you call it ,maybe u believe cos u need to believe in something,and no need to search it..
not all are on links on internet or written at books...
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
It seems like you have to presume it true for it to have any weight behind it, to be honest. Your own criteria said something needed to be presumed true to be considered as evidence. 2.1 billion Christians do presume it to be true, but not you, so it is not presumed to be true. Right...
And I haven't twisted a thing.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."