For those who think Jesus is a myth...

[Zonk]

 

For those who think Jesus is a myth, could you please provide references as to why you think so? Thanks

 

......

 

Could you please post links with solid references that support your claim?

 

 

I think someone here doesn't quite understand the concept of burden of proof. Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If you're claiming that he had magic powers, on amazing abilities. The onus is on you to prove it, rather than on other people to disprove it.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Zonk

[TaraMaiden]

Precisely.

If a person believes something exists, then it's more on their shoulders to demonstrate that, than it is ours to disprove it.

 

those who think Jesus is a myth, have ample evidence and verifiable data to demonstrate he is exactly that.

ergo, if a person persists in the claim that we are wrong, then it's up to the believer to back it up.

Not us.

 

I absolutely and completely uphold the right of any person to believe whatever they want, worship in whichever way they want, and follow whichever faith they want. I would never argue or interfere with that, and they have my utmost respect.

 

But if they insist on throwing down a gauntlet - then I'll be happy to pick it up.

[xxoo]

I tend to agree that a man named Jesus existed, and was the basis for many stories. I don't believe, however, that the gospels of the New Testament are necessarily the truth of his life.

 

In reading about the history of Christianity, and how men made decisions about what would, and what would not, be included in the New Testament, and also how words and ideas would be translated, it seems clear to me that there was an agenda in creating the "right" Story of Jesus, and that agenda was to promote Christianity. The agenda was not to be perfectly accurate.

 

For example, while many Christians believe that the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by the men of these names, religious scholars believe that is probably not the case. Also, these were certainly not the only 4 gospels at the time--many more existed, but weren't included in the Bible. They were intentionally excluded. Why? Why these gospels, and not those? Some ideas are in these essays.

[Eve]

I think someone here doesn't quite understand the concept of burden of proof. Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If you're claiming that he had magic powers, on amazing abilities. The onus is on you to prove it, rather than on other people to disprove it.

 

This is not a Court room. It is clearly a matter of the wrong method of enquiry being held up by many as being the route of evidence; You cannot express what you are looking for in the first instance because it is not originating from you. So, my query is why the onlooker believes they are so central? It is not about them. Countless persons have told what they know and have experienced of The Christ. If no one was saying owt, then yes it would be a myth but this is not the case. Especially as the only method of meeting the Christ would be supernatural which there is no scientific measurement for.

 

So, it boils down to a case of either believing them, or not as even the onlooker cannot state what they are looking for... if you see what I mean. This is because they are not meant to because the person telling is the evidence.

 

I don't know what branch of philosphy what I am stating belongs to, lol.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[zengirl]

It's not that hard or only courtroom logic to understand the philosophical burden of truth. If I say I had a floating elephant on my ceiling last year and ask you to definitively prove that is not true, you could not. Let alone 1000 years ago. That is an impossible task. However, if I was going to claim that, I should assert some basis in fact, if I want others to believe it. "You can't prove it isn't true!" is a child's response to disbelief, honestly. Anyone else would understand the nature of disbelief in such a thing.

 

Which is not to say, if I truly believed in said floating elephant, I shouldn't believe it. I just shouldn't expect others to validate my belief.

 

I am curious about this, because I know Jewish Orthodox people who do not believe their Scriptures, the Tanakh are myths, but rather historic accounts.

 

The Jewish Orthodox are not the majority of Jews, and I was speaking to the Jewish faith as a whole. Yes, they are more fundamental, and I believe nothing near what they believe. I think they are wrong to take the Tanakh as historic accounts and there is no proof it is a purely historical work. Most myths are found in histories, mind you. Where do you think we get the Greek or Egyptian myths? The myths of Camelot? etc.

 

So apparently, there are people who dub the Tanakh to include myths, and there are people who do not.

 

Right. And there are people who consider the story of Jesus a myth and people who do not -- why can't we call it a myth? Christians feel free to label other, similar religious stories as myths. Why can't we treat all religions the same?

 

Do you and the people you knew in the faith of Judaism believe Moses is just an allegory and not a real person who truly experienced what is written in the Tanakh?

 

Most Jews I know consider the stories allegories. That said, they believe them allegories with some historical basis. I don't think anyone here is saying nothing in The Bible has any historical basis. Personally, I think it's really hard to tell how much, mostly because there are too many people who believe it is 100% truth, despite not being a work of nonfiction, to actually allow anyone to investigate with objectivity.

 

The "Jesus myth" concept doesn't mean there was no historical Jesus or composite of several people that matches some facets of the historical Jesus. It means there was no supernatural, son-of-God Jesus who performed miracles or rose from the dead or so forth. There was an Odysseus or several Greeks he was a composite of, but I have no faith in the stories that he was captured by Circe or a cyclops. It is no different to me. In fact, the Odysseus myth is at least objectively studied.

 

Do most Jewish people you know, who believe in God, consider Moses to not be a true person. but rather the "mythological Moses"?

 

A bit of both, really, but they wouldn't be insulted by the phrase, coming from one who was not Jewish, especially.

 

What I am asking is for people who think that Jesus IS mythological, to please provide proof as to that claim, because the idea that Jesus is a true, real person who did miracles has been acknowledged by real human beings who follow him, since the time he lived until today and continuing.

 

You're missing the point. The supernatural Jesus is not a real person, no more than the supernatural Odysseus is, or the tales of Camelot are all true, etc. The historical basis for something does not necessarily prove supernatural tales about it -- in fact, when we look at history, we can (in most cases) assess that the supernatural tales were NOT true and came from the limited understanding of our world, science, and the particular culture of the times they were formed. The only thing people cannot do this with are living religions -- for some reason, we're supposed to honor living religions we don't follow more than dead ones. I don't buy into that concept, sorry. If the Greek tales are myths, then the Jesus tales are myths. They are the same to me.

 

Again, I would appreciate reliable sources that claim this, because I would like to see how they arrived to such a conclusion.

 

It fits the basis for myth, from a literary perspective. It shares characteristics with myths. There is no evidence of any of the miracles performed, and the supernatural nature of ALL old texts, including The Bible, differs greatly from what we know to be true today.

 

There is no proof Zeus is not real either and that he didn't come down in human form to cheat on his goddess wife and have lots of half-human, half-god sons and daughters, but I can safely say so without anyone asking me how I can "prove" that.

 

Do you consider Josephus to be an objective historian who was not Christian? Josephus was not a Christian, and was quite objective.

 

Josephus is not a historian examining the past. I'm speaking to the way we understand the past, which is historians actually examining it. We all know the historical texts of such eras are not pure nonfiction. Do you believe all Homer's tales were literally true as well? He was a historian in his day, as well.

[pie2]

BetheButterfly - Thanks for posting this great thread! I think it's such an important question to ask...in fact, I think it's one of the most important question to ask ourselves.

 

You would hope that any question about the man Jesus, who is the most devisive, talked about, written about, celebrated, despised figure in human history, would garnish well-educated, firmly established responses. You'd hope that EVERYONE would have a grasp on why they hold on to their spiritual beliefs.

 

For example, people might site Jewish doctrine that make claims how/why they think Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies (1) , or how Christians misconstrue the reality of his existance (2), or some sort of reference to why parts of his story are "mythical" (3).

 

1. Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus, why Jews reject Jesus,why the Jews don't believe in Jesus

 

2. Is God Always Superior to Jesus? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

 

3. Deceptive God, Incompetent Messiah: What Islam Really Teaches About Allah and Jesus

 

 

But faith in Jesus has become so passe, asinine...even offensive to mainstream society. Sheesh, you just ask as simple question as to why someone believes something...and people jump down your throat!

 

Since the time Jesus walked this earth, there have been reasons to not believe in Him. But there are SO many more reasons to believe in him:

 

Biblical Prophecy Resource Center - Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus

Jesus: Which prophecies did his life and death FULFILL?

Jesus fulfills Old Testament Prophecy

 

BOTH walks of life take a leap of faith...it takes some sort of faith that the doctrines stating that Jesus is not the messiah are real, true and without their own elements of self-serving manipulation.

 

At least taking a leap of faith in Jesus leads to a MUCH happier, more fulfilling, richer, wonderful life!!! Trust me...I know both sides of the story

[Eve]

The burden of proof is a general principle required for rational discussion. It applies everywhere. If you did not, you should read the link posted. I say this because if you object the burden of proof, then the following things happen:

 

1. You are obligated to believe in, for example, Xenu, unless you can conclusively prove that he does not exist somewhere. For reference, Xenu is an intergalactic warlord at the centre of Scientology. So you'd have to master space travel and visit every planet in the solar system simultaneously to show that he wasn't out there somewhere.

 

2. (From the article), "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed". The defense for any assertion, including things like the Celestial Teapot, becomes "you can't prove it's not there".

 

In short, abandoning the burden of proof makes a mockery of any rational discussion. These are things that all people should consider before they resort to saying "prove me wrong".

 

Ok then. I did read the link. I know there are other philosphical arguments to the contrary of what you state which are far more concise than what I have said but I can't verbalise them... and that is ok.

 

So, even though I know what I know and don't believe I can really prove it to anyone, I don't believe that all knowledge is the same, until proven.

 

I would also say that a belief in which the person remains essentially the same is no belief at all and that myths are essentially stories which no one verifies, in whatever way.

 

 

Take care,

Eve x

[TaraMaiden]

Since the time Jesus walked this earth, there have been reasons to not believe in Him. But there are SO many more reasons to believe in him:

 

Biblical Prophecy Resource Center - Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus

Jesus: Which prophecies did his life and death FULFILL?

Jesus fulfills Old Testament Prophecy

 

BOTH walks of life take a leap of faith...it takes some sort of faith that the doctrines stating that Jesus is not the messiah are real, true and without their own elements of self-serving manipulation.

 

At least taking a leap of faith in Jesus leads to a MUCH happier, more fulfilling, richer, wonderful life!!! Trust me...I know both sides of the story

words fail me...

1 piece of fiction, upholding another piece of fiction...

bit like Lord of the Rings, really....

 

This in no way proves anything.

It just proves that what one piece of text states, the other copies...

[xxoo]

You would hope that any question about the man Jesus, who is the most devisive, talked about, written about, celebrated, despised figure in human history, would garnish well-educated, firmly established responses. You'd hope that EVERYONE would have a grasp on why they hold on to their spiritual beliefs.

 

To non-believers, or believers of other faiths, the figure of Jesus is far less important than he is to you.

 

I was taught the stories. I had doubts. I questioned. My questioning led me to learn about the history of Christianity, and the religions that preceded Christianity (with curiously similar stories). And after learning all of that, I no longer believed.

 

I don't understand how a person can study the history of Christianity, and it's roots in Paganism, and still believe. But I don't expect others to share my beliefs, either.

 

It only seems to be Christians who wonder why others don't believe as they do.

[CarrieT]

To non-believers, or believers of other faiths, the figure of Jesus is far less important than he is to you.

This!

 

I don't understand how a person can study the history of Christianity, and it's roots in Paganism, and still believe.

And this again!

 

It only seems to be Christians who wonder why others don't believe as they do.

Which puts Christianity - in my mind - as a cult... Many are so incredulous as to NOT believe which makes non-believers evil, forces of Satan, bad, etc...

[gaius]

I bet in 200 years more will believe in Xenu than in Jesus.

[KathyM]

Christ's existence is well documented in history--probably moreso than anyone in history. Documented from many sources--not just Christian sources. People of many different faiths and even people of no faith believe Christ existed, but what people are not in agreement with is whether or not he was the messiah--the Son of God. Christians believe in the accounts of hundreds of people who testified as to Christ's appearance after resurrection, but many also believe they have proof in their own life and the lives of others that He exists. Many have witnessed miracles in their own lives and the lives of others as a result of prayer. Miracles that could only be explained by divine intervention. I know that is the case with me.

[CarrieT]

Many have witnessed miracles in their own lives and the lives of others as a result of prayer. Miracles that could only be explained by divine intervention.

 

And many pagans/wiccans/magicians like myself have CREATED "miracles" in our own lives and the lives of others as the result of spells/incantations/positive thinking (whatever you want to call it).

 

We don't believe there is any divine intervention but that WE, as individuals, are divine and can create our own "miracles."

 

I know this is the case with me and I don't need to credit the existence of an historical figure for these events.

[Nohbody]

[D-Lish]

Christ's existence is well documented in history--probably moreso than anyone in history. Documented from many sources--not just Christian sources. People of many different faiths and even people of no faith believe Christ existed, but what people are not in agreement with is whether or not he was the messiah--the Son of God. Christians believe in the accounts of hundreds of people who testified as to Christ's appearance after resurrection, but many also believe they have proof in their own life and the lives of others that He exists. Many have witnessed miracles in their own lives and the lives of others as a result of prayer. Miracles that could only be explained by divine intervention. I know that is the case with me.

 

Jesus is not the most well documented figure in the history of humanity, not by a long-shot.

 

I believe Jesus the man existed, but not Jesus the divine.

[CarrieT]

This is good - from Dan Barker:

 

 

The question of the historical existence of Jesus has hit the news with the recent, intriguing lawsuit in Italy by Luigi Cascioli, who is suing a priest, Rev. Enrico Righi, over his published assertion that "Jesus did indeed exist." Such a claim, Cascioli says, is a deception, an "abuse of popular belief," which is against Italian law. The lawsuit refreshingly demands that Righi prove that Jesus existed. In his defense, Righi and obliging media have trotted out many alleged evidences for Jesus, long ago discounted, yet which continue to pepper the credulous writings of conservative religious authors and scholars. According to the Associated Press, Righi "cited many known observers, including non-Christian ones, who have written about the existence of Jesus, such as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, considered by scholars to be the most important non-Christian source on Christ's existence." Here is the paragraph that currently appears in The Antiquities of the Jews, written by Josephus around 95 C.E.: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct to this day."

 

If this is the strongest and earliest extra-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus, then the scholarship is on the shakiest grounds. That passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even were it historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. The Associated Press chose to omit the fact that scholars have largely discounted the Josephus paragraph- as a later interpolation. The passage, although widely quoted by believers today, did not show up in the writings of Josephus until centuries after his death, at the beginning of the fourth century. Thoroughly dishonest church historian Eusebius is credited as the real author. The passage is grossly out of context, a clear hint that it was inserted at a later time. All scholars agree that Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth," so the passage must have been doctored by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The phrase "to this day" reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone agrees there was no "tribe of Christians" during the time of Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century. If Jesus were truly important to history, then Josephus should have told us something about him. Yet he is completely silent about the supposed miracles and deeds of Jesus. He nowhere quotes Jesus. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives and tells us nothing that would not have been known by Christians in either the first or fourth centuries. In all of Josephus' voluminous writings, there is nothing about Jesus or Christianity anywhere outside the tiny paragraph cited so blithely by the Associated Press. This paragraph mentions that Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus does not tell us who those prophets were or what they said. This is religious propaganda, not history. If Jesus had truly been the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, then Josephus would have been the exact person to confirm it. And this is the "most important" historical evidence for Jesus! The other phrase from Josephus that Righi and AP cite concerns James, the so-called "brother of Jesus," and is likewise flimsy. It says that a man named James was stoned to death, which is not mentioned in the bible. Many scholars believe the "brother of Jesus" phrase is a later interpolation, and that Josephus was referring to a different James, possibly the same James that Paul mentions in Acts, who led a sect in Jerusalem. Contradicting Josephus, Hegesippus wrote a history of Christianity in 170 C.E. saying that James, the brother of Jesus, was killed in a riot, not by sentence of a court. Righi also cited Pliny the Younger, who, in the early second century (112), reported that "Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god." Notice how late this reference is; and notice the absence of the name "Jesus." The passage, if accurate, could have referred to any of the other self-proclaimed "Christs" (messiahs) followed by Jews who thought they had found their anointed one. Pliny's account is not history, since he is only relaying what other people believed. No one doubts that Christianity was in existence by this time. Offering this as proof would be the equivalent of quoting modern Mormons about their beliefs in the historical existence of the Angel Moroni or the miracles of Joseph Smith--doubtless useful for documenting the religious beliefs, but not the actual facts. Tacitus, another second-century Roman writer who alleged that Christ had been executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate, is likewise cited by Righi. Written some time after 117 C.E., Tacitus' claim is more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. No historical evidence exists that Nero persecuted Christians--Nero did persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was confused. There was certainly not a "great crowd" of Christians in Rome around 60 C.E., as Tacitus put it, and, most damning, the term "Christian" was not even in use in the first century. No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus. In fact, it appears almost word-for-word in the fourth-century writings of Sulpicius Severus, where it is mixed with other obvious myths. Citing Tacitus, therefore, is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus. Such are the straws believers must grasp in order to prop up their myth. Historians have no evidence of a historic Jesus dating from the early first century, even though many contemporary writers documented the era in great detail. Philo of Alexandria, for example, wrote in depth about early first-century Palestine, naming other self-proclaimed messiahs, yet never once mentioning a man named Jesus. Many other contemporary writers covered that era, yet there is not a single mention of any existence, deeds, or words of a man named Jesus. [/COLOR][/sIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma][sIZE=4][COLOR=#000080]Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, in their book The Jesus Mysteries, explain how the myth and legend of Jesus could easily have arisen without a historical founder. The Jesus story was pressed from the same template as other mythical savior-gods who were killed and resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis. [/COLOR][/sIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma][sIZE=4][COLOR=#000080]Early Christians agreed that Christianity offered "nothing different" from paganism. Arguing with pagans around 150 C.E., Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word [Jesus], who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." Fourth-century Christian scholar Fermicus, in attempting to establish the uniqueness of Christianity, met at every turn by pagan precedents to the story of Jesus, in exasperation concluded: "The Devil has his Christs!" [/COLOR][/sIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma][sIZE=4][COLOR=#000080]The Gospels are not history; they are religious propaganda, contradictory, exaggerated, and mythical. The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, are silent about the man Jesus: Paul, who never met Jesus, fails to mention a single deed or saying of Jesus (except for the ritualistic Last Supper formula), and sometimes contradicts what Jesus supposedly said. To Paul, Jesus was a heavenly disembodied Christ figure, not a man of flesh and blood.

There is serious doubt that Jesus ever existed. It is impossible to prove he was a historical figure. It is much more plausible to consider the Jesus character to be the result of myth-making, a human process that is indeed historically documented. In covering Luigi Cascioli's fascinating lawsuit, the media need to stop acting like a megaphone for religion, and start doing some balanced reporting. Here are a few references relating to the historical Jesus:

The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999, Three Rivers Press)

Did Jesus Exist? by G. A. Wells (1975, Pemberton)

The Jesus Puzzle: Challenging the existence of an historical Jesus by Earl Doherty (1999, Canadian Humanist Association)

Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price (2000, Prometheus Books)

The Jesus Legend by G. A. Wells (1996, Open Court)

The Historical Evidence for Jesus by G. A. Wells (1982, Prometheus Books)

Jesus in History and Myth by Joseph R. Hoffman and G. A. Larue (1986, Prometheus Books)

Jesus: Myth or History? by A. Robertson (1949, Watts)

Pagan Christs by J. M. Robertson (1911, London)

The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S (1999, Adventures Unlimited)

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman (2005, Harper San Francisco) (to document gospel discrepancies)

Edited April 16, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[pie2]

a bit like Lord of the Rings, really....

 

Yes...at least allegorically!

 

Tara, you seem to demand direct evidence of Jesus. Like his actual body, or the actual eyes he gave sight to, or a direct viewing of him multiplying the bread and fish. Do you demand the same level of proof for Shakespear's existance? Or Abraham Lincoln? Galileo? How do you know these people existed? Did you talk with them? No...you rely on historical accounts and circumstantial evidence that verifies their existance.

 

There's almost no dispute among scholars, scientists, historians etc. that Jesus existed. I provide additional resources, knowing full well you will most likely chalk them up to more ill-informed fantasy rants of the intellectually challenged (at least, that's what it feels like you think of Christians)....however, you never know!

 

The Historiography of the Jesus Myth

 

Jesus Many Faces - The Historical Jesus | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

 

But, I'm not trying to force this down your throat or anything! You don't have to believe that Jesus existed, and you certainly don't have to believe that he is God. It's sad to me (like, I feel genuine sadness) if you choose not to experience this thing that has given me so much happiness, but there's no one forcing you to believe.

 

The OP just asked WHY you believe what you do...that's all

[pie2]

To non-believers, or believers of other faiths, the figure of Jesus is far less important than he is to you.

 

It only seems to be Christians who wonder why others don't believe as they do.

 

 

It's not about wondering why people don't follow Christ.

 

I just think that people who embark on a journey of spiritual enlightenment should at least ponder Christ's role in relation to humanity and God. I'm not saying that they'll follow Christ, but rather at least question why such a large portion of humankind believe this man to be God and what that means to them.

 

Unfortunately, I think mainstream society does not often prioritize embarking on spiritual journeys anymore, which is a shame.

 

And what's wrong with Christians wanting other people to exerience the joy they have in Christ? I think it would be wrong if Christians, who find so much happiness and peace, didn't want everyone to have Christ in their lives!

[KathyM]

Jesus is not the most well documented figure in the history of humanity, not by a long-shot.

 

I believe Jesus the man existed, but not Jesus the divine.

Nobody really knows who is the most documented person in history. That was really not my point. My point is that there is much proof of His existence from non-Christian sources as well as Christian sources. He is well documented. People of many faiths and even people of no faith acknowledge that Jesus existed. What some don't agree on is if He is the Messiah.

 

[FONT=Verdana]

129 Facts of Jesus Christ[/FONT]

 

If you still don't think Jesus lived in person on earth then that issue can be tackled elsewhere since 95 to 99% of sceptical and non-sceptical scholars do not doubt Jesus walked the earth. If you are going to deny the life of Jesus then you will have to throw out everyone in history, because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity.

 

In "The Historical Jesus - Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ" (1996) by Gary R. Habermas, the leading scholar on the resurrection, we can summarize what the earliest sources have said (pages 225, 250-253). Tiberius Caesar who died four years after Jesus only has 9 sources of him whereas Jesus has 45 sources within 150 years of their deaths.

 

[sIZE=2]"We have examined 45 ancient sources for the life of Jesus, which includes 19 early creedal, four archaeological, 17 non-Christian, and five non-New Testament Christian sources. From this data we have enumerated 129 reported facts concerning the life, person, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus the disciples' earliest message."[/sIZE]

 

The Person of Jesus

 

"The deity of Jesus was widely reported in ancient writings that we investigated. Of our 45 sources, 30 record this teaching, which surprisingly includes seven of the 17 secular sources.

 

"It was pointed out in Chapter 4 that [sIZE=2]Jesus claimed to be deity[/sIZE], as indicated, for example, by such titles as "Son of God" and "Son of Man" [for a detailed study, see Miethe and Habermas, chapter 27]. The pre-New Testament creeds (the six Acts texts, along with Rom. 1.3-4, 1 Cor. 11.23ff., 15.3ff. and Phil. 2.6ff., in particular, provide especially strong evidence for the deity of Jesus.

 

"These creeds show that the church did not simply teach Jesus' deity a generation later...The best explanation for these creeds is that they properly represent Jesus' own teachings, especially since he made similar claims."

 

The Death of Jesus

 

[sIZE=2]"Of all the events in Jesus' life, more ancient sources specifically mention his death than any other single occurrence. Of the 45 ancient sources, 28 relate to this fact, often with details. Twelve of those sources are non-Christian, which exhibits an incredible amount of interest in this event. [/sIZE]

 

[sIZE=2]"Not only is Jesus' death by crucifixion of major concern to these authors, but 14 of 28 sources give various details about the crucifixion, from medical observations to political information concerning the current rulers, to historical specifications of the times in which Jesus died, to religious details about the reason for his death...It is fair to assert that this is one of the best-attested facts in ancient history.[/sIZE]

 

"After Jesus' death, he was buried. This fact is not only strongly affirmed by five different sources, but generally a normal consequence of dying. These sources include the early creeds in 1 Cor. 15.3ff. and Acts 13.29, as well as hostile sources such as Toledoth Jesu and the information implied in the Nazareth decree.

 

"Of our 45 sources, 18 specifically record the resurrection, while an additional eleven more provide relevant facts surrounding the occurrence.

 

The Resurrection of Jesus

 

"Of the seventeen [non-Christian sources], seven either imply or report this occurrence [of the resurrection of Jesus].

 

"Alternative theories that have been hypothesized by critics to explain the resurrection of Jesus on naturalistic grounds have failed to explain the data and are refuted by the facts.

 

"Even if we were to utilize only the four minimal historical facts that are accepted by virtually all scholars who deal with this issue, we still have significant basis on which to both refute the naturalistic theories and provide the major evidences for the resurrection."

 

Corroborating Evidence

 

J[sIZE=2]esus fulfilled 62 prophecies from hundreds, even thousands of years prior. The odds of this happening are less than 1 in a trillion, scientifically speaking. He said He was God and proved it. He was sinless - the only man who was ever was sinless! He performed miracles none have been able to duplicate except the apostles. His teachings were deeper than any other. None can compare! He gave His life on the cross to die for you. And He was resurrected, seen by many eyewitnesses - including various writers of the books of the NT such as Matthew, Paul, Peter, John, James, and others. No less than 12 times was Jesus seen resurrected to various group sizes. Even one group had 500 people present. The brother of Jesus did not believe Jesus was God until he saw him resurrected after He died on the cross. Others (Mark and Luke) who were virtually firsthand accounts wrote books of the NT and testified to these teachings. There is one verse we suspect was Mark seeing Jesus before he died. Luke was close to the action also. They both went on missionary journeys with Barnabas and Paul. [/sIZE]

 

There were many others mentioned in the Bible who had been put to their death for faith in Christ (e.g. Stephen), spreading the Word and giving the Gospel. Then the apostles were all killed for their faith in Christ for admitting seeing Jesus resurrected except for John. James, the brother of John, was the first to be martyred. Many others in the first century were mentioned who believed in Jesus and gave their lives to Christ on the cross, especially women. And many other biographies of martyrs in Christ are recorded from Christian writers in the first century as well as from non-Christian sources too.

 

If you choose to be a skeptic, you can investigate the evidence yourself if you care to, but you really can't say that there is no evidence of Jesus' existence, because there is a lot of it from many sources, not just Christian sources.

[pie2]

And many pagans/wiccans/magicians like myself have CREATED "miracles" in our own lives and the lives of others as the result of spells/incantations/positive thinking (whatever you want to call it).

 

 

Wow...do you have any examples of the miracles you've created?

[xxoo]

It's not about wondering why people don't follow Christ.

 

I just think that people who embark on a journey of spiritual enlightenment should at least ponder Christ's role in relation to humanity and God. I'm not saying that they'll follow Christ, but rather at least question why such a large portion of humankind believe this man to be God and what that means to them.

 

Unfortunately, I think mainstream society does not often prioritize embarking on spiritual journeys anymore, which is a shame.

 

I'm in the U.S. Here, at least, Christianity is the dominant culture. It is impossible to live here without some awareness of and knowledge about Christianity.

 

In a country where the dominant culture is Christianity, a spiritual journey will often lead an individual away from Christianity. How many people begin a journey and end up where they started?

 

I don't think the issue is that people aren't embarking on spiritual journeys. Read what posters have posted here, reflecting their own spiritual journeys.

 

And what's wrong with Christians wanting other people to exerience the joy they have in Christ? I think it would be wrong if Christians, who find so much happiness and peace, didn't want everyone to have Christ in their lives!

 

Because it assumes that what works for you works for others. It assumes you have the key that will work for everyone.

 

But others have found happiness and peace in a different spirituality. And some of us never felt much peace in the Christian faith.

[zengirl]

It takes no leap of faith to not believe in things that have not met their burden of proof. Eschewing irrationality leads to a much more honest and rewarding life. Trust me, I've tried both.

 

Right. It does not take a leap of faith to say the burden of proof is not met -- it takes no leap --- it is the very refusal of taking a leap of faith which requires and subsequently notices the lack of proof.

 

To non-believers, or believers of other faiths, the figure of Jesus is far less important than he is to you.

 

I was taught the stories. I had doubts. I questioned. My questioning led me to learn about the history of Christianity, and the religions that preceded Christianity (with curiously similar stories). And after learning all of that, I no longer believed.

 

I don't understand how a person can study the history of Christianity, and it's roots in Paganism, and still believe. But I don't expect others to share my beliefs, either.

 

It only seems to be Christians who wonder why others don't believe as they do.

 

Right. I'm not saying Christians cannot believe what they want to believe. What I mind is when they pretend there is proof. There is not proof. I have met Christians who can be logical and rational and admit that, while also believing. But anyone who is so irrational as to believe that any supernatural story is inherently true to the point of objective fact just because a bunch of folks wrote it down a long time ago. . . well, that defies rational logic. Again, what is different about the myths we call myths? They were also intended as histories by many civilizations.

 

Christ's existence is well documented in history--probably moreso than anyone in history.

 

First of all, this is blatantly untrue. NO historical (unless you count the Bible which is a religious text, not a purely historical text, and cannot be taken as any kind of fact) sources document "Christ." Some document a man named Jesus. Many suggest the Christian idea of Jesus was a composite of several men. And MANY other people in history were MUCH more well-documented by an array of sources. Even many people from the time Jesus lived in.

[Nohbody]

His real name was Yeshua, which translates to Joshua.

 

So, yes. Jesus is a mythtranslation.

[ThaWholigan]

I was a born-again Christian for a few years in my adolescence (at the behest of my mother who had converted). I never truly found solace through Christianity, and I had always held metaphysical beliefs which go against much of Judaism.

 

I believe Jesus existed, but not as the "Son of God". I believe that deities are simply old souls who have existed for all time within the many dimensions that make up the fabric of the universe. That is my belief anyway.

 

I believe that God is everything, the energy around us, not a dude in the sky. Therefore, I believe that God lives within us, as energy. I can't really fully explain my beliefs, I wouldn't put alongside others probably.

[Feelin Frisky]

Christ's existence is well documented in history--probably moreso than anyone in history. Documented from many sources--not just Christian sources. People of many different faiths and even people of no faith believe Christ existed, but what people are not in agreement with is whether or not he was the messiah--the Son of God. Christians believe in the accounts of hundreds of people who testified as to Christ's appearance after resurrection, but many also believe they have proof in their own life and the lives of others that He exists. Many have witnessed miracles in their own lives and the lives of others as a result of prayer. Miracles that could only be explained by divine intervention. I know that is the case with me.

 

"Miracles" pollute the story and subvert the message bound up in Jesus humanity. If one believes the miracle myths then one objectifies Jesus as a god. If one discounts them but observes the human messages of Jesus live and death, it becomes clear that the message in one of emulation--of courage to stand in the face of adversity for what is right. The message seems to be about fellowship--and definitely NOT worship and subjugation. Just my view of the value of Jesus message.