Evidence (?) for Christ's Resurrection

[Nick]

Latest post of the previous page:

How long do you suppose folk lived 2,000 years ago and in the dessert?

They probably all drowned in custard......

[Dave B]

Intriguing: Is small scrap of faded papyrus first evidence that Jesus had a wife?

I seem to remember that there was a theory, based on old texts, that he was in some kind of relationship with Mary Magdalene.

Of course there are always those of a litecontrary opinion . . .

[Tetenterre]

Would have thought that Germania was a bit cold for growing canabis

It was fine in the late 1970s, as was Poland.

Don't ask!

[Compassionist]

How would we know for sure whether or not Jesus was resurrected and whether or not the Apostles died as martyrs?

More on this: http://www.ichthus.info/Disciples/intro.html

Here is a secular rebuttal: http://www.godlesshaven.com/articles/di ... yrdom.html

What is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus?

[Dave B]

Would have thought that Germania was a bit cold for growing canabis

It was fine in the late 1970s, as was Poland.

Don't ask!

Might have been a bit chillier back then:

Further glacial expansions occurred around 1400 BC to 1200 BC, and between 200 BC and around AD 500–800.

[Alan H]

I'm sure biblical scholars will be frantically trying to disprove that papyrus, but I'm not sure this is very convincing: Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

[Alan C.]

Jesus never existed, so it stands to reason he couldn't have had a wife. any historical evidence to the contrary would be welcome.
I know I beat on about this but I'll continue to do so until I'm provided with a scrap of historical evidence.

[Dave B]

No chance that there was this actual charismatic bloke (possibly with a serious personality problem) on whom a good, lasting legend was built by those who had an eye for a scam then?

[Alan C.]

^ Not to my mind, no.
Would you give the same probability to Mithra? If not, why not? The supposed genealogy is exactly the same.

[Dave B]

Must read about Mithras one day, heard a few things but never got into the detail.

Oh, might as well start with Wiki I suppose . . .

OK, so the blokes that built the Jesus myth, still possibly inspired by a real person mind you, on a previous story. Not an unusual occurrence even today. Shows a bit of a lack of imagaination I admit, but you have to start somewhere!

[Alan C.]

Dave
Must read about Mithras one day, heard a few things but never got into the detail.

Not sure if a wind up Dave, but giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Born of a virgin, on December 25th, dead but then resurrected three days later, etc, etc.

Not from wiki.

[Dave B]

Not really a wind up, Alan, just feel that the parallels in the story does not prove that some person was not used as the "manikin" over which the Jesus story was built, <edit> over whom the attributes of Mithra(s) were draped </edit>. I would agree that he could not have done the miracles etc., no question there in my mind, but a charismatic, persuasive, erudite, man might possibly have existed at that time.

Even with the iron fist with which the church pounded it into the minds of Dark and Middle Age societies one has to admit that it has survived the last two millennia pretty well and is possibly failing as much due to the behaviour of its priests as the growth of rational thought.

It does amaze me that people can put so much faith into something that fails so totally, so often, and still rationalise those failures away. Science, especially medicine in saving lives, may have its problems but seem a lot more reliable to me!

[Alan C.]

Dave
I would agree that he could not have done the miracles etc., no question there in my mind, but a charismatic, persuasive, erudite, man might possibly have existed at that time.

So, again, can you point me to some (any) historical evidence?
If not then the only assumption I can make is that he (Jesus) is a made up "person"

Why did nobody mention him till 30/70 years after his supposed existence? Why were the "gospels" not written till 70/100 years after his supposed existence?

Who wrote the "gospels" Even the Catholic encyclopedia say they don't know.

And I've asked this before, where and what was Jesus doing between infanthood and age 30? And why wasn't it noted somewhere, anywhere?

[Dave B]

Alan, I agree that the Jesus we were taught about is a fictitious character as a whole but, though there is no evidence to prove it, there is still the possibility that some sort of rabbi character was the very base of the construction - that the JC figure was not just plucked out of someone's brain.

Most of the ancient myths have some sort of basis, most of the Greek ones in derive quirks in the human mind and character. Even if most of them are abstract in origin there is always the possibility that some are seeded from concrete reality - a tiny seed that was blown up out of all proportion by clever people.

But you have to admit that it is amazing that so many people, even disregarding those who were forced into compliance, over so many centuries have maintained such a belief. Those who constructed this obviously had a good working understanding of the human psyche.

I see no problem in allowing such a possibility in an objective way - despite the fact that I spent the last 30 odd years of my working life having to prove that 1 + 1 = 2, precisely, under every adverse condition that I could impose on it.

[Alan C.]

Dave
I agree that the Jesus we were taught about is a fictitious character as a whole but, though there is no evidence to prove it.

The burden of proof is on those making the assertion that Jesus existed, and they have none as my requests for historical evidence have consistently shown.

I'll throw it out again.
Historical evidence for Jesus? Any takers?

No! Then please stop referring to (the non existent myth) That is "Jesus" as though he was real.

[animist]

Dave
I agree that the Jesus we were taught about is a fictitious character as a whole but, though there is no evidence to prove it.

The burden of proof is on those making the assertion that Jesus existed, and they have none as my requests for historical evidence have consistently shown.

I'll throw it out again.
Historical evidence for Jesus? Any takers?

No! Then please stop referring to (the non existent myth) That is "Jesus" as though he was real.

Alan, you are adopting the same criteria over the mere existence of Jesus (whether a unitary or composite personage) as one might (and I certainly do) about God or the Resurrection. I don't think this is reasonable and that it is at least reasonably probable that Jesus existed - how else do you explain the gospels and the rest of the NT? You demand historical evidence; well, maybe there is no strong evidence, but why is it so important to disbelieve in the existence of someone who (but for an unaccountable accident of history) would have been an extremely minor figure? If Jesus did not exist in any sense, what was the engine that produced these accounts of his life? And the attached wiki article says that most scholars do believe in his existence, based on non-Xian historians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Alan C.]

animist.

I don't think this is reasonable and that it is at least reasonably probable that Jesus existed - how else do you explain the gospels and the rest of the NT?

As I've already pointed out, he's a carbon copy of the much earlier (at least 1,500 years) Mithra, among others.

This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."

In many mythicist writings, the ancient Phrygo-Roman god Attis is depicted as having been born of a virgin mother on December 25th, being killed and resurrecting afterwards.

You demand historical evidence; well, maybe there is no strong evidence

There isn't even any weak evidence, unless you count hearsay and third hand accounts.

[Alan H]

Vatican researchers conclude “Jesus’ wife” papyrus fragment is fake

[animist]

animist.

I don't think this is reasonable and that it is at least reasonably probable that Jesus existed - how else do you explain the gospels and the rest of the NT?

As I've already pointed out, he's a carbon copy of the much earlier (at least 1,500 years) Mithra, among others.

This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."

In many mythicist writings, the ancient Phrygo-Roman god Attis is depicted as having been born of a virgin mother on December 25th, being killed and resurrecting afterwards.

You demand historical evidence; well, maybe there is no strong evidence

There isn't even any weak evidence, unless you count hearsay and third hand accounts.

I don't think the fact that there are many parallels between Jesus and Mithras (the copying might be two-way of course, since although some form of the Mithras cult goes back a long time before Jesus, it was in some form contemporaneous with Jesus's life) makes Jesus some "carbon copy" of Mithras. Many differences: the Mithras myth seems to lack any gospel equivalent which would put forward a claim for its own validity, or any ethical content like the Sermon on the Mount or the parables, or any historical claim to be an actual living person with acquaintances (the disciples) whom we know did exist (I think), or any textual or historical context at all in fact. It seems to be obsessed with killing bulls.

If there simply was no such person as Jesus, then the four gospellers presumably concocted stories (which despite their inconsistencies, do have a lot of common features) about noone at all? Seems easier to believe that there was at least some basis in fact to this; presumably you think three of them just copied Mark? Maybe so, and of course a lot of the text of the gospels can be linked to OT prophesies etc - but all of it? And while I find the attempts to show that many apostles died because of their faith unconvincing as a reason to believe in the resurrection, it does seem to suggest that they, some of them anyway, did actually know someone called Jesus who preached in Palestine.

You have obviously read about Josephus and Tacitus, two non-Xian writers who mention Jesus and who are generally thought to be reasonably reliable sources; they are obviously not first-hand sources, but whether second-hand or third-hand seems less important than this general reliability. To quote from the Wiki article I have already posted:

Josephus on Jesus - a page from a 1466 copy of Antiquities of the Jews:
"The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3] The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[4][1][2][5][6][7] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[8][9][10] Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[11][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[11][12][13][14][15] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[16] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[15] The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[17] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[8][18] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[8][19][18]"

Tacitus on Jesus:
"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1] The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.[10][11]"

[Compassionist]

Thank you animist for your enlightening post. I have met Christians (one of them is my wife) who claim to have had supernatural experiences which prove to them that the Biblical worldview and accounts are factual, not fictitious. I have had dreams and hallucinations with religious content but I am hestant to call these experiences 'evidence'. A pastor told me of a 'healing miracle' where cancerous tumours were ejected by the body of the patient following Christian prayer for healing. If I had been there I would have ensured that the 'ejected tumours' were scientifically studied in medical labs and it puzzles me that the witnesses didn't bother to report it to the British Medical Journal and arrange such studies.

[Alan C.]

animist
(the disciples) whom we know did exist (I think),

You know? I doubt.

The mentions of "Jesus" by Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the younger, are all acknowledged as forgeries added later to "fulfill" old testament "prophesies"
As I've said more than once before, read the Catholic encyclopedia (among other things) even they accept it.

How is it that all these Palestinians have Western European names, Joseph, Mary, Matthew, Mark, Peter, etc, yet Jesus has a Mexican name