Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning JWs

[Anon-Eye-Mouse]

So there I was, happily trolling youtube and facebook, lolling at lulz and being a degenerate little atheist when, knock knock knock, the glorious Jehovah's Witnesses came to the door. It's about 8am, I'm guessing they were trying to catch people before they set off for work or maybe I just got lucky. Anyways, I thought it could be the postie with my latest amazon packages, so I bound down like a puppy, luckily remembering to put clothes on before I get to the door.

'Hello! We were hoping we could take a few moments to have a little chat to you about somethings...'

Oh bollocks.

Still, I'm always up for this little challenge and we rattle through the main talking points that normally pop up, isn't the modern world scary, look at this pretty picture of heaven, isn't that nice, no hell, no heaven blah blah blah.

Then one of the two, the older guy wearing the jesus sandals with no sign of irony, ends a sentence about prophecy with 'and Jesus foretold of this. We know that historically. FACT!'

This set the old sirens going...

So I challenged it. What direct observational testimony was there that Jesus said this... in fact, what evidence is there that Jesus existed at all?

Now I brought up Josephus myself, explored the evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum is one of the worst forgeries in history and makes no contextual sense, etc.

This is a mistake on my part, because Josephus is the only historical 'evidence' for Jesus that I know anything much about, very much a one bullet point list.

The response I got was predictable. Basically, 'just because Josephus lied (I know... I know.. bare with me) doesn't mean loads of other evidence isn't there for a historical Jesus Christ'.

So I pressed him to name five. I then dropped it to three, and finally one.

The younger guy at this point gets out his New World Translation and thumbs through it whilst calling someone up on his mobile. For some reason this stuck in my mind because I thought they might object to such technology, but I have no idea why I thought that...

Any how, after about two minutes of chuntering away on the phone while I tried to pin his elder friend down to something more concrete than 'Roman and Greek administrators, you know historians and the like' he made a kind of chuckle/choking/eureka noise and spun around saying: Paul!

Historical evidence for Jesus = Josephus, (which I brought up) and St Paul. Holy shit.

The conversation deteriorated into a babble about prophets, prophecy and the 1914 deadline for the end of the world which I won't bore you with right now, other to mention that the younger guy hadn't even heard of Charles Taze Russell which blew me away. Eventually they made their excuses and escaped.

So, if you are still with me by now, I got to thinking... other than Josephus and the hilarity that is the Testimonium Flavianum and, obviously, Paul's letters, what contemporanious historical testimony is there for an actual living, breathing Jesus Christ AND what are the strengths and weaknesses attached to evidence?

I've always just conceded the point that Jesus existed, said what he is supposed to have said and got crucified for it and simply moved on to questioning his divinity and purported miracles. however, is this fair to do? Is even this concession too generous?

I'd love to get you guys' opinion on this one...


A bleary eyed, AEM.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

So, if you are still with me by now, I got to thinking... other than Josephus and the hilarity that is the Testimonium Flavianum and, obviously, Paul's letters, what contemporanious historical testimony is there for an actual living, breathing Jesus Christ AND what are the strengths and weaknesses attached to evidence?

No one who met Jesus ever wrote anything about him, so there are no contemporary sources. Paul most likely did meet the disciples of Jesus but he writes as if Jesus was talking to him and some of the letters are known forgeries. Josephus was writing about 50 years after Jesus dies and there are two references. One is the forgery and there is another that talks about 'James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ'. This seems more authentic but given the other reference it is hard to say. Pagan sources for the 100 years after Jesus' death number three. Two are unconvincing the third is from Tacitus who is explains that the troublesome Christians take their name from "Christus". The other source is the Christian gospels but they are filled with a lot of make-belief so it's hard to build a credible picture of the real Jesus.

Although the sources for Jesus are pretty bad we are talking about an end-times preacher in a backwater Roman province so the evidence we have is probably sufficient to accept that the man Jesus existed.

 

[Anon-Eye-Mouse]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

Tacitus seems only to mention that Christians follow a dead guy called christ (I'm paraphrasing here). Hardly a testimony for any features of his alledged deeds and also it's fair to assume that this information was taken from the christians themselves. Exactly how rare is the name 'Christ' in those times?

Also, who are the two other pagan sources?

So thus far we have:

Josephus
Tacitus

Two dubious pagans

Paul and the Gospels.

Is this really it? Is there nothing more?

So when christians tell me there is more evidence for Christ than any other contempory historical figure, THIS is the total evidence?

WOW.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

Pliny the Younger and Seutonius are the two others, but they are even worse than the Tacitus reference.

Christ is not a name but a title, it means 'the Messiah'.

Josephus was not a pagan, he is a Jewish source.

 

[Anon-Eye-Mouse]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

In reverse order:

Josephus was not a pagan, he is a Jewish source.

I know. Sorry for not being more clear, but by dubious pagans I was refering to Pliny T Younger and Seutonius as I didn't know who they were at that point.

Christ is not a name but a title, it means 'the Messiah'.

I knew that too, not that you could tell by my sloppy use of the term 'name'. What I meant to say was, how many proclaimed Christs were there at the time? Was there only one Messiah? Or did Monty Python have it right, with a glut of the little buggers running around?

Pliny the Younger and Seutonius are the two others, but they are even worse than the Tacitus reference.

Wiki is uniquely unhelpful in finding the evidence of these two, so it looks as if I will have to do some *gulp* actual research. Unless some kind soul were willing to give me the skinny on it here... *Cute Puppy Anon Eyes*.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

What I meant to say was, how many proclaimed Christs were there at the time? Was there only one Messiah? Or did Monty Python have it right, with a glut of the little buggers running around?

Monty Python was right, and I think they knew it. Wouldn't be surprised if John the Baptist was one of them.
In fact, Google Video has a documentary called "The Rivals of Jesus".

 

[Master Ridley]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

What I meant to say was, how many proclaimed Christs were there at the time? Was there only one Messiah? Or did Monty Python have it right, with a glut of the little buggers running around?

There's only supposed to be one Messiah but there were many during Jesus' time that claimed to be the Messiah, including Jesus himself. The Jews were desperate for a Messiah during Jesus' time though a Messiah coming around that time was impossible because of the existence of the Second Temple. However, this didn't stop hundreds of people to claim to be the Messiah but none of them, not even Jesus, completed any of Messianic Prophecies despite Christian protesting he has and will complete the rest on his second coming"¦which disqualifies him to be the Messiah. They all didn't even fit the Messianic qualifications though Jesus appears to fit most of them but not all, which automatically disqualifies him too.

When the true Messiah comes, the whole world will know and abandon Jesus. However, will a true Messiah ever come? Probably not as it's just a fairy tale and some of the tasks the Messiah must accomplish are impossible, like bringing an end to hunger, illness and death...and starting the Friendly Zombie Apocalypse.

So there's plenty of evidence for Christ"¦and the fact that the Christ never came! Oh, you're referring to evidence of Jesus. Jesus is possibly a combination of those Messiah wannabes I mentioned above, sown together with pagan and ancient myth and proverbs to complete Jesus' Gilded Story.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

I am of the opinion that whether he existed or not is largely irrelevant to both atheists and Christians.

I would suggest not wasting time trying to show something that can never be proven conclusively either way without a TARDIS.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

I think the existence of his supposed miracles is pretty important though. If his crucifixion was as climactic as "Josephus" described it, you'd think someone else would have wrote about it. And I love hearing that hundreds of people saw the resurrected Jesus and were amazed and converted on the spot, but none of them thought to write about it?

Did Pilate ever write anything? How much do we know about him from sources outside the bible?

 

[Amerist]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

Contemporary evidence for Jesus is nonexistent; and extra-contemporary evidence is often misunderstood and misrepresented by the "man on the street" type.

I had a conversation with a street preacher on Mill Ave once who told me that there was "more evidence for Jesus than for George Washington." A fell far less convincing than the next guy who used Julius Caesar instead. I queried, repeatedly, on why we have the graven likenesses of both historical figures claimed and writings penned by their own hands why they figured that meant we had less evidence for them than someone who we have no likeness of nor ever wrote anything.

The response in both cases pointed out that the majority of historians believe that Jesus was a real person. To this I can just shrug, these historians are bowing to a doubt without a benefit. Even if a Jesus lived, he certainly didn't live in the manner depicted in Christian mythology and as we cannot separate fact from legend we don't actually know thing one about this person -- worse, even those historians cannot claim to know if he existed or not. These historians have no good reason to make that assertion except to mollify their own cognitive dissonance at their cultural Christianity.

When I started studying the mythology of the contemporary culture around me (the cultural Christianity) I became astonished at the blatant lack of any historical reason to believe that Jesus ever existed as a real person. It has never occurred to me that the mythological structure had so managed to permeate discourse that nobody ever really looking into this. The harder I looked, the less I found.

 

[Mycernius]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

Pliny the Younger and Seutonius are the two others, but they are even worse than the Tacitus reference.
.

Suetonius also mentions Vespasian curing a blind man by spitting in his eyes. Seems that any important man could do miracles in olden days.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

I don't give a flying fuck-a-doodle-doo if "Jesus, son of Joseph, brother of James" existed or not. Don't care, don't find it even remotely interesting.

I know Abraham Lincoln existed, as much as we can know anything about the past. We have first- and second-hand accounts, photographs, things in his own handwriting, whatever. He totally existed.

We also have a book titled Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. We know Abraham Lincoln existed, but we also know that every claim related to Abraham Lincoln is not necessarily true. He most likely did NOT slay vampires, or any other supernatural beings.

In the same way, we can accept the existence of "Jesus" without accepting any supernatural claims in reference to him. He might have existed, he might not have... Christopher Hitchens makes an interesting argument FOR the existence of Jesus, that explains why so many lies were told about him after the fact. In any case, the existence of "Jesus" is a non-relevant point when it comes to accepting or rejecting supernatural claims.

 

[eqfan592]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

I personally find this sort of discussion to be very interesting. I moved away from Christianity (and religion in general) some time ago for many reasons, none of which dealt with if JC existed at all, or at least as he is depicted. But I find the topic very fascinating, though I have little to offer other discussion wise.

Mainly, I'm just a huge history buff, and learning how the words of a few people echo through history and the major ramifications those echos have always gets my juices flowing.

 

[bongorock]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

I think the question of Jesus' historicity is an important one. Not to place somebodies whole atheism on but a good one to use against Christians, many of whom do base their whole faith on this figure.

Most Christians that I know presume that a lot is known about the historical Jesus. I remember being in an R.E. class when I was about 12 and the teacher said that there are lots of Roman records about Jesus. Who were we to question this and we didn't. It wasn't until about a decade later that I came across the fact that there is no contemporary evidence for the historical Jesus and even the Christian accounts are contradictory. Of course it was a different time and we don't have many records full stop but if there was a man who did the things that say he did then he would be well known. Don't forget he apparently fed 5000 people on his own. In those days there was around 500,000 in the whole of Israel and only 80,000 in Jerusalem. Nobody would doubt that he was the Messiah.

It's easy to get convinced that there wasn't a historical Jesus but it's extremely unlikely. However the Jesus that most people follow is almost certainly nothing like the one that they think he is.

Somebody asked about Pontius Pilate, he is a historical figure and I think recently they found an inscription with his name on it.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

Theres no evidence that a physical character called Jesus Christ. is the real son of god. Only the tradition of christianity says so. even if you proved that there was a real character called jesus. you still have to prove that he is the real son of god, and not some magician or fraudster.

I would like to see you apply the same criteria to Alexander the Great.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
let's see...
Antiquities Of The Jews By Flavius Josephus ther is Tacitus, and some other sources that you probably know them.
And of course, the existence of the church.

looks like this is the standard response.

Of course, i maintain that there is a difference between proving that a certain character existed and proving that the said character is the son of god. proving the former does not instantly prove the latter. Yet the latter is surely the most important factor here. Christianity rests upon it.

 

[lilmarome]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

Yea those people are so funny. They're like: the church exists and people wrote about him long after he died so that must mean that he performed miracles and was the son of god. Just because he might have existed it does not automatically mean that everything claimed about him is correct"¦..

 

[bongorock]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

Yea those people are so funny. They're like: the church exists and people wrote about him long after he died so that must mean that he performed miracles and was the son of god. Just because he might have existed it does not automatically mean that everything claimed about him is correct"¦..

This is a good point. Christians expend a lot of energy trying to convince us that Jesus was a reliable historical figure but even if he was it makes it in no way likely that he is the son of God.

I love how they still to this day think that if they can suggest that the Gospel writers knew Jesus then that answers everything. Like there is no way they could be lying. I've never understood how they reconcile this with other claims that people make about figures of a supernatural nature that are contemporary.

How do they prove that they are lying but the Gospel writers aren't?

 

[Waff]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

Ive read that simply the existence of Christ as a historical figure is so supported that denying it as almost as bad as Holocaust denial and belief in Creaitonism (evolution denial). The stuff about Jesus that is really debatable then is the Resurrection and the such, but I have heard that we may not know for sure that if what is in the gospels is 100% what Jesus said.. But Im not really studied too well on this subject, but if the consensus is that he existed, arent atheists and the like wasting their time like Creationists are with trying to debunk evolution? HOw do you guys that are well read on the subject respond to the Holocaust denial comparison?

 

[lilmarome]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

...but if the consensus is that he existed, arent atheists and the like wasting their time like Creationists are with trying to debunk evolution? HOw do you guys that are well read on the subject respond to the Holocaust denial comparison?

The point is that you can't know that Jesus performed any miracle, was gods son, and was resurrected. They can't know that the Jesus that they believe in is real, the only thing that they can know for sure is that someone called Jesus lived in that time in that area, and that is not very useful for the theist position.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Evidence of Christ other than Josephus and early morning

But Im not really studied too well on this subject, but if the consensus is that he existed, arent atheists and the like wasting their time like Creationists are with trying to debunk evolution?

Probably, although to be completely fair the evidence for evolution is way better than the evidence for Jesus.

HOw do you guys that are well read on the subject respond to the Holocaust denial comparison?

Godwin = fail. Plus we have eyewitness accounts of the atrocities committed, as previously stated we don't have any eyewitness accounts for Jesus and historians would agree on that fact.