Did Jesus Christ really exist?

[mystery-ak]

@Mesaclone

you simply won’t find anything pre the 115 AD time frame

Not too long after Jesus's death......no written stories of all the miracles Jesus performed?..you would think just the opposite.

Either you believe on faith alone...

That struck a cord with me...12 years Catholic schools...I once asked during Religion class in HS if the Bible was just a bunch of made up exaggerated stories...which prompted a visit to the principal where I was told I have to have more faith in the word... and a call to my mother.

I was inquisitive to say the least and once even contemplated becoming a nun....which would have been a terribly wrong decision.

[bigheadfred]

History is written by the victors. In the dust; and changes and rearranges with the wind. And fades away. Only to repeat itself.

Faith changed the world forever, and is unchangeable.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjZ4oa-8b7fAhWCgFQKHa-7DvAQFjALegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F11%2F30%2Fworld%2Fmiddleeast%2Fpontius-pilate-ring.html&usg=AOvVaw3wYRscjim82rX1MjoF1Bno

[Mesaclone]

@Mesaclone
Not too long after Jesus's death......no written stories of all the miracles Jesus performed?..you would think just the opposite.The first writings we have about Jesus are from Paul's letters...followed by Mark and the other Gospels. Most theologians extrapolate the existence of an earlier source known as Q but that's unprovable at this point in time. What is rather clear is that Christianity made virtually no impression on the Romans of the 1st century beyond being known as an oddball Jewish sect infecting the dark places of urbis Romanis.

That struck a cord with me...12 years Catholic schools...I once asked during Religion class in HS if the Bible was just a bunch of made up exaggerated stories...which prompted a visit to the principal where I was told I have to have more faith in the word... and a call to my mother.
I admire your inquisitiveness and skepticism as I was also a bit of a bane to my Sunday school instructors...too many questions and too many "why's" asked often makes the "faithful" very nervous. As for the Bible being a bunch of "made up exaggerated stories"...I think it would be very hard to make a rational argument otherwise. It still has tremendous metaphorical value, but those who want to read it as a true accounting of specific events are kidding themselves...these are myths and lessons drawn from a core of genuine events.

I was inquisitive to say the least and once even contemplated becoming a nun....which would have been a terribly wrong decision.
I very nearly went to Episcopal seminary but was thankfully talked out of it by Archbishop Shelby Spong, with whom I was corresponding in the old fashioned way...snail mail. As with you, it would have been a terribly wrong decision!

[mystery-ak]

I wanted to add my inquisitiveness and even skepticism at times renewed and strengthened my faith more so than any priest or nun could...I found it myself.

[Oceander]

From the Greeks (Archimedes, Euclid, Pythagoras......) to the Scholastics of the High Middle Ages
to the Renaissance (Copernicus, Galileo. Kepler........) to the pre-Moderns (Newton, Rutherford, Watt........ ) scientists produced the Laws of Science which still govern our physical world.
What have the Moderns given us???
Theories such as Evolution and Relativity w/all the practical impact of a rock.
Their latest load of manure is global warming and now Christianity.
Where would we be w/o these assholes????????????????

Relativity has no impact?  Please.  And I suppose E=mc^2 had no impact, either. 

[Victoria33]

Oh,He'll be back.....

@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

If He did not exist, why are our calendar numbers based on His life?

"BCE and CE

Today, many secular textbooks, Internet articles, and print media are beginning to replace BC and AD with BCE and CE.  BCE is simply an abbreviation for “Before Common Era” while CE stands for “Common Era” which begins at the year zero.  BC and AD stand for essentially the same thing except for one vast difference; BC stands for “Before Christ” or before Jesus Christ was born while AD is an abbreviation for “anno domini,” which is Latin for “Year of the Lord.”  The actual date of Christ’s birth is not precisely known.  Most scholars and historians agree that they had the date wrong by assigning the year 0.  The best scholarship now says that Jesus was born between 4 and 6 BC."
Read more: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/how-did-the-calendar-begin-and-why-did-the-years-change-after-jesus-was-on-earth/#ixzz5aqZT3ObE

Well, scrap our calendars that are based on Jesus birth because He did not exist; therefore, what is the date tomorrow (Thursday)?

[bigheadfred]

@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

If He did not exist, why are our calendar numbers based on His life?

"BCE and CE

Today, many secular textbooks, Internet articles, and print media are beginning to replace BC and AD with BCE and CE.  BCE is simply an abbreviation for “Before Common Era” while CE stands for “Common Era” which begins at the year zero.  BC and AD stand for essentially the same thing except for one vast difference; BC stands for “Before Christ” or before Jesus Christ was born while AD is an abbreviation for “anno domini,” which is Latin for “Year of the Lord.”  The actual date of Christ’s birth is not precisely known.  Most scholars and historians agree that they had the date wrong by assigning the year 0.  The best scholarship now says that Jesus was born between 4 and 6 BC."
Read more: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/how-did-the-calendar-begin-and-why-did-the-years-change-after-jesus-was-on-earth/#ixzz5aqZT3ObE

Well, scrap our calendars that are based on Jesus birth because He did not exist; therefore, what is the date tomorrow (Thursday)?

IMO. This is worth watching.


Sorry...

[Skeptic]

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2012/05/11/the-letter-of-pilate-to-tiberius/

Fine, i’ll Cite just one of countless refutations...follow the above link.

To summarize:
1. Earliest drafts known are written in Renaissance style Latin not Roman colloquial usage.
2. No copies of the  text are known prior to the 14 th century.
3. It has Zpilate speaking like a latter day born again Christian calling Jesus divine and other such common Renaissance era Christian phraseology.
4. Finally, no early Christian apologists refer to this specific evidence...which they absolutely would have cited during the 300’s when the great Pagan v Christian arguments were rather continuous.
5. The letter was prompted by a brief mention in the Gospel of Nicodemus to a letter from Pilate...it’s hardly a coincidence a letter written in Renaissance Latin with standard Christian terminology just appears out of the blue after 1300 years of absence.

That ends the argument. Very convincing with the drama and passion. That was the passion of the author so loyal to the Crusade he falsified a document of a fallen empire to gain recruits.

[RoosGirl]

@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

If He did not exist, why are our calendar numbers based on His life?

"BCE and CE

Today, many secular textbooks, Internet articles, and print media are beginning to replace BC and AD with BCE and CE.  BCE is simply an abbreviation for “Before Common Era” while CE stands for “Common Era” which begins at the year zero.  BC and AD stand for essentially the same thing except for one vast difference; BC stands for “Before Christ” or before Jesus Christ was born while AD is an abbreviation for “anno domini,” which is Latin for “Year of the Lord.”  The actual date of Christ’s birth is not precisely known.  Most scholars and historians agree that they had the date wrong by assigning the year 0.  The best scholarship now says that Jesus was born between 4 and 6 BC."
Read more: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/how-did-the-calendar-begin-and-why-did-the-years-change-after-jesus-was-on-earth/#ixzz5aqZT3ObE

Well, scrap our calendars that are based on Jesus birth because He did not exist; therefore, what is the date tomorrow (Thursday)?

There was no Year 0 in the BC/AD system.

[goodwithagun]

I wanted to add my inquisitiveness and even skepticism at times renewed and strengthened my faith more so than any priest or nun could...I found it myself.

Yep. I joined the church for many reasons, which include a series of nasty anti-Catholic threads on TOS.

[Hoodat]

Not too long after Jesus's death......no written stories of all the miracles Jesus performed?..you would think just the opposite.

Keep in mind that the scribes of that day were firmly allied with the priests and pharisees.  In their zeal for stamping out Christians, they would also have gone after Christian writings.

As for miracles, they don't give people faith.  They merely amplify the faith they already have.  Conversely, for those of anti-faith, their aversion to faith only increases in the presence of miracles. Look at Lazarus.  As a response to this tremendous miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead, the priests took it up a notch by conspiring to murder him.

I was inquisitive to say the least and once even contemplated becoming a nun....which would have been a terribly wrong decision.

Nothing wrong with being in the marketplace.  In fact, Jesus spent quite a bit of time there.  He was essentially a marketplace minister.  Most of His stories and parables were marketplace situations.

As a real world employee, I have the opportunity to impact people who may never come in contact with a priest or nun.  Christianity is based on attraction rather than promotion.

[TomSea]

I saw in this past year I believe, they identified the grave of Peter, St. Peter,  is their evidence then, of apostolic succession. Also, I have heard (and searched for this to no avail recently but did read it in the past), there has been graffitti in the catacombs that seems Christian, records of Christians being fed to the lions exist? Sometimes, the line is rolled out, "".

Is it true that there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than Julius Caesar's?
Eric Breaux, studied at Sulphur High School (2011)
Answered Oct 20, 2017

Not more evidence than for Julius Caesar, but the ratio is accurate with most other people, including kings and other emperors, so that’s a moot point.
There's plenty of well known ancient historians who wrote about Jesus, one of which being Luke who also wrote a gospel. There's about 42 documents saying something about Jesus, a lot of which are not positive of Christianity. Some historians also account for Jesus miracles recorded in the gospels or just that Jesus was famous for miracles that they dismiss as illusionist tricks, or otherwise sorcery.

...  https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-there-is-more-evidence-for-Jesus-existence-than-Julius-Caesars

[roamer_1]

First, there are no contemporary writings about Jesus....period.

Nonsense. The Gospels are contemporary.

There ARE Gospels that reference Mary being Jesus companion...most important companion to be precise...and that he kissed her on the lips often. In the culture of that era, that is a clear reference to marital status.

LOL! You criticize @Skeptic  and then rely upon (other) gnostics? Your bullshit meter needs adjustment @Mesaclone . I agree with you wrt Acta Pilatus (the 'gospel' of 'nicodemus') but then you lend credence to the 'gospel' of 'phillip' in nearly the same breath? How the hell does that work?

As for miracles...there are miracle stories of Tiberius and other Emperors healing the sick...not to mention Simon Magus and many others...it was a time of deep superstition. But keep in mind...NONE of these stories were written contemporaneously, be they about Jesus or other “magic” workers.

Your 'scientific' bias asserts itself.

Either you believe on faith alone...or you don’t. There IS no historical evidence that supports...or detracts...from claims of divinity.

Again, false. my faith is in the promise. The evidence stands on its own.

[roamer_1]

If the letter was a fake then who wrote it and when? If they don't know who and when then what evidence is there to indicate the letter was fraudulent? The letter is well written, you can't deny that, fake or not.

The Old and New Testament psuedepigrapha are well known and well critiqued. For the most part, that criticism is well founded.

[roamer_1]

If He did not exist, why are our calendar numbers based on His life?

@Victoria33
Sorry dear, but the basis for BC/AD is incorrectly calculated. It does not coincide with the birth of Yeshua, nor his death, and more than that, ignorantly messed up history for quite a time, simply by not asserting a '0' year... Much of it based upon Roman and Greek ignorance of Hebrew culture and means.

[roamer_1]

IMO. This is worth watching.

Yep, but start with the first...
He has another installment coming up btw...

[roamer_1]

Keep in mind that the scribes of that day were firmly allied with the priests and pharisees.  In their zeal for stamping out Christians, they would also have gone after Christian writings.

More than that...

Who would take notice of the doings going on in a minor provincial backwater? Why would there BE a record? The record was recorded by those who loved him, because the world in its ignorance failed to take notice of an itinerant preacher from a hick town in a hick province of a hick country. Just like today.

But within 100 years, when they started to take notice, Christianity had become a tsunami. That is a remarkable thing.

[TomSea]

The Latin Vulgate Bible was translated around 400 AD, Jerome, not sure about how we are talking about some letter in renaissance Latin.

[roamer_1]

The Latin Vulgate Bible was translated around 400 AD, Jerome

Yes, and poorly.

[TomSea]

Yes, and poorly.

At least, it's got all books of the Bible, at least, it isn't 2 continents and 2000 years removed from Christ. But those faiths must be the true ones.

I doubt if you have proof of that,  Latin?  You are high on the BS meter yourself.

[Hoodat]

But within 100 years, when they started to take notice, Christianity had become a tsunami. That is a remarkable thing.

Equally remarkable is that there was a thriving church already established in Rome before Paul (or Peter) arrived.  All roads lead to Rome, as they say.  And with it come merchants, stewards, marketeers, farmers, and even slaves who had become Christians at some other point in their journey - all of whom congregated and established corporate worship.

[roamer_1]

At least, it's got all books of the Bible

There was no 'all the books of the Bible'... Canon is a Roman construct. Thanks for a great example.

[roamer_1]

Equally remarkable is that there was a thriving church already established in Rome before Paul (or Peter) arrived.  All roads lead to Rome, as they say.  And with it come merchants, stewards, marketeers, farmers, and even slaves who had become Christians at some other point in their journey - all of whom congregated and established corporate worship.

The oldest known above-ground legitimate church is Glastonbury, England... Where the Apostles went, where the 70 went... far and wide. Folks need to expand their vision. There were people of many tongues there to witness that first Pentecost (Shavuot). They all went home, all over the world... And told their testimony... That is why there was a thriving church in Rome before Pete and Paul.

[TomSea]

Whatever, the point is, some Latin Bibles existed by 200 AD in fact, if it makes one feel good to say they are poor translations, that's not really the point of bringing up when "Renaissance Latin" is being spoken of. That's just to put that Bible down and unrelated to the conversation. Doesn't seem very charitable and is off topic. Good for a book review. I suppose errors can be found per some sources, funny, how it was relied on as a translation and back in 200-400 AD,  it certainly was a different time, but if one must criticize the scholarship, so be it. Some people wouldn't even have a Bible. Oh, well, what can you expect?

[roamer_1]

Whatever, the point is, some Latin Bibles existed by 200 AD in fact

Nothing but an appeal to authority. The age of a text is not as important as it's accuracy - Both in translation and interpretation.

That's just to put that Bible down

Not at all.

funny, how it was relied on as a translation and back in 200-400 AD,  it certainly was a different time, but if one must criticize the scholarship, so be it. Some people wouldn't even have a Bible. Oh, well, what can you expect?

No, at the time it was available in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as well as Latin. Latin was not 'relied' upon at all.