By the way, I would actually concede that on the balance of probabilities Jesus existed. This is because pretty soon after his supposed death, people were prepared to die in his name. This is without doubt. And Paul is relatively contemporary and knew (but didn't get on with) several of the followers of the early Jesus movement (including Jesus's brother James).
However, would I be looking at this through the criminal burden of proof (beyond all reasonable doubt); the answer would be in the negative.
If you could be so kind and provide evidence that Jesus didn't exist, then that would be a good starting point. It's easy to be so dismissive of something you choose not to believe in, but it is a little pig headed to play the "prove that he did exist" card. He has figured in historic scriptures so that is enough to prove his existence. Whether he was a Messiah, or a miracle worker is irrelevant. That is purely down to faith.
I'm neither saying he existed, nor saying he never existed, nor am I trying to prove either of these things
ultimately if you want to prove something, it's up to you to prove it. I have nothing to prove
The other thing is, the gospels don't always say what the faithful think they do.
I've already touched upon the tradition of using 'Abba' for god (Jesus wasn't alone at the time in doing this).
But Jesus also never claimed to be god's actual son. The term he used was 'son of man' (a Jewish term used by Ezekiel). It's a grand claim - asserting himself as the promised messiah but it does not denote anything divine (and as Jew that concept would have been rejected by Jesus anyway).
The one gospel which might be said to assert the divinity of Jesus is John. And that is the 'newest' of the four canonical texts. The reason for this is the consistent use of the verb 'to be': 'I am the way the truth and the light; etc....' - this relates to the Yahweh of the Old Testament which itself is associated with the verb 'to be'.
John is quite an anti-semitic gospel in many ways (certainly not written by the 'apostle' John but much later).
No need to be so self righteous and rude. I have researched "The Immaculate Conception" and, like millions across the world assumed it was regarding the conception of Jesus. It is because the bible doesn't make it clear at all, and infact doesn't even refer to Mary as being "sinless"..........
You're perfectly right, and I apologise. I just couldn't resist when you had totally misunderstood the basic idea, but went on about how important it was to you. It's not even mentioned in the bible; it wasn't official doctrine until 1854.
the idea of the immaculate conception is thought by some to be simply a result of mistranslation of the original text. here is a quick link that has some mention of some possibilities
By the way, muslims also believe in the virginity of Mary but the concept of the immaculate conception would be utterly alien to them (as it is only Christians who have a concept of 'original sin').
By the way, muslims also believe in the virginity of Mary but the concept of the immaculate conception would be utterly alien to them (as it is only Christians who have a concept of 'original sin').
Your posts on this topic (early Christianity) are always very eloquent and I agree with what you say.
If only people would treat religious figures like any other famous person from the past they would find that the historical origins far more interesting than the 'supernatural' myths.
'Immaculate' does not and never has meant 'without sex'.
It means 'without sin'. It means she was 'chosen' before birth and was born without the stain of original sin which all humans are supposed to be born with (according to Christian tradition). She was, however, conceived in the usual way. (Contrary to popular consciousness, original sin was never regarded as sexual sin).
Of course original sin is a Christian concept - it does not exist in Judaism.
The immaculate conception only became official Catholic doctrine in the nineteenth century because it was such a problematic and controversial idea. It was never fully accepted - even within the RC Church.
The actual historical evidence for Jesus is very thin. If it was any other person than some religious leader, the consensus would be that the actual evidence for his existence (meaning independent sources) is just not present. The bits in Josephus where he is mentioned were almost certainly added by someone else long after the fact.
There are no independent sources from the time to point to his existence. And the problem is, there is lots about other people - Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas, John the Baptist even.
Ironically the one bit of (albeit questionable) evidence which might point to his existence is the James Ossuary. Unfortunately for Christians, it kind of is problematic - pointing to Jesus having perfectly normal human sibilings and likely not being born of a virgin.
The vast majority of serious historians ( Not DS posters) are happy to accept the historical Jesus.
The actual historical evidence for the existence of Jesus would not stand up to any real academic scrutiny. For this, independent (i.e not the gospels), non partisan contemporary accounts would be required - along with physical evidence.
The vast majority of serious historians are happy to accept the historical Jesus.
It's not about 'proving' or 'disproving'. That is ridiculous. I can't 'prove' that unicorns don't exist either but I'm pretty sure there's no evidence that they do.
The actual historical evidence for the existence of Jesus would not stand up to any real academic scrutiny. For this, independent (i.e not the gospels), non partisan contemporary accounts would be required - along with physical evidence.
There is none.
This really is nonsense I am afraid. What have you to say about Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus? And why discount the evidence of the biblical writers? On what evidential basis do you do that?
The emperor Tiberias was in power when Jesus lived. There is no contemporaneous writer who talks about him. Does that mean he did not exist?
The truth is that, people who take your view apply different standards, so that a lower standard for 'normal' historical figures is accepted than for Jesus. I wonder why? And it's nothing to do with Jesus' claims because we are only debating his existence, nothing else
The other thing is, the gospels don't always say what the faithful think they do.
I've already touched upon the tradition of using 'Abba' for god (Jesus wasn't alone at the time in doing this).
But Jesus also never claimed to be god's actual son. The term he used was 'son of man' (a Jewish term used by Ezekiel). It's a grand claim - asserting himself as the promised messiah but it does not denote anything divine (and as Jew that concept would have been rejected by Jesus anyway).
The one gospel which might be said to assert the divinity of Jesus is John. And that is the 'newest' of the four canonical texts. The reason for this is the consistent use of the verb 'to be': 'I am the way the truth and the light; etc....' - this relates to the Yahweh of the Old Testament which itself is associated with the verb 'to be'.
John is quite an anti-semitic gospel in many ways (certainly not written by the 'apostle' John but much later).
This is quite incorrect.
All four gospels attest to the divinity of Jesus. For example, in each of them he is recorded as forgiving sins which was accepted as being in the province of a God alone.
I am not sure of the basis upon which you confidently state that John was not written by the apostle and that it was much later. Would you care to post your evidence?
The emperor Tiberias was in power when Jesus lived. There is no contemporaneous writer who talks about him. Does that mean he did not exist?
Interesting history to this one. There is good reason why no contemporary writer has recorded Tiberias' life:
Tiberias was born in November 42BC and was the son of Claudias Nero and Livia Drusalla. He grew up in luxury, but when his father died, his mother married Augustas.
He fought in Pannania, Dalmetia, Raetea, and Germanea, then took up a post as a tribune, but became depressive and retired to Rodes.
While there he met a young general called Tiberius, who had also fought in the same campaigns, but not as successfully. The two of them often laughed about the near concidences in the names of the people in their families.
In September 14AD Rome declared Tiberias emperor. In a fit of jealousy Tiberius slew him with a sharpened lamb-bone and took his place.
So to this day history tells of Emperor Tiberius instead of Tiberius.
usual caveat: I got this off Wikipedia - so it might have a few errors.
.................I am not sure of the basis upon which you confidently state that John was not written by the apostle and that it was much later. Would you care to post your evidence?
Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[20][21] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[22][23][24][25][26][27] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.[28][29]
I am not sure of the basis upon which you confidently state that John was not written by the apostle and that it was much later. Would you care to post your evidence?
The final chapter asserts that the disciple who sat next to Jesus at the Last Supper "testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true."
He clearly didn't write that bit but the actual author of the Gospel cites him as the source of the narrative. This disciple, according to Polycrates of Ephesus (2nd century) was a priest, He also seems to have owned property in Jerusalem where the mother of Jesus lived out her last days. Hardly likely to have been a Galilean fisherman like John the Apostle.
Comments
However, would I be looking at this through the criminal burden of proof (beyond all reasonable doubt); the answer would be in the negative.
I'm neither saying he existed, nor saying he never existed, nor am I trying to prove either of these things
ultimately if you want to prove something, it's up to you to prove it. I have nothing to prove
I've already touched upon the tradition of using 'Abba' for god (Jesus wasn't alone at the time in doing this).
But Jesus also never claimed to be god's actual son. The term he used was 'son of man' (a Jewish term used by Ezekiel). It's a grand claim - asserting himself as the promised messiah but it does not denote anything divine (and as Jew that concept would have been rejected by Jesus anyway).
The one gospel which might be said to assert the divinity of Jesus is John. And that is the 'newest' of the four canonical texts. The reason for this is the consistent use of the verb 'to be': 'I am the way the truth and the light; etc....' - this relates to the Yahweh of the Old Testament which itself is associated with the verb 'to be'.
John is quite an anti-semitic gospel in many ways (certainly not written by the 'apostle' John but much later).
You're perfectly right, and I apologise. I just couldn't resist when you had totally misunderstood the basic idea, but went on about how important it was to you. It's not even mentioned in the bible; it wasn't official doctrine until 1854.
Unless I missed it, that article has nothing to do with the immaculate conception, it's about the alleged virginity of mary.
Which many experts reckon is a mistranslation of the word for "girl of marriageable age".
Your posts on this topic (early Christianity) are always very eloquent and I agree with what you say.
If only people would treat religious figures like any other famous person from the past they would find that the historical origins far more interesting than the 'supernatural' myths.
I agree with you. Some people can be very stubborn.
The vast majority of serious historians ( Not DS posters) are happy to accept the historical Jesus.
The vast majority of serious historians are happy to accept the historical Jesus.
Don't think that there is much doubt that he actually existed just when he was born and was he the son of God I guess?
This really is nonsense I am afraid. What have you to say about Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus? And why discount the evidence of the biblical writers? On what evidential basis do you do that?
The emperor Tiberias was in power when Jesus lived. There is no contemporaneous writer who talks about him. Does that mean he did not exist?
The truth is that, people who take your view apply different standards, so that a lower standard for 'normal' historical figures is accepted than for Jesus. I wonder why? And it's nothing to do with Jesus' claims because we are only debating his existence, nothing else
Right on the wicket sir!
This is quite incorrect.
All four gospels attest to the divinity of Jesus. For example, in each of them he is recorded as forgiving sins which was accepted as being in the province of a God alone.
I am not sure of the basis upon which you confidently state that John was not written by the apostle and that it was much later. Would you care to post your evidence?
Tiberias was born in November 42BC and was the son of Claudias Nero and Livia Drusalla. He grew up in luxury, but when his father died, his mother married Augustas.
He fought in Pannania, Dalmetia, Raetea, and Germanea, then took up a post as a tribune, but became depressive and retired to Rodes.
While there he met a young general called Tiberius, who had also fought in the same campaigns, but not as successfully. The two of them often laughed about the near concidences in the names of the people in their families.
In September 14AD Rome declared Tiberias emperor. In a fit of jealousy Tiberius slew him with a sharpened lamb-bone and took his place.
So to this day history tells of Emperor Tiberius instead of Tiberius.
usual caveat: I got this off Wikipedia - so it might have a few errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
The final chapter asserts that the disciple who sat next to Jesus at the Last Supper "testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true."
He clearly didn't write that bit but the actual author of the Gospel cites him as the source of the narrative. This disciple, according to Polycrates of Ephesus (2nd century) was a priest, He also seems to have owned property in Jerusalem where the mother of Jesus lived out her last days. Hardly likely to have been a Galilean fisherman like John the Apostle.