 | Challenge: Prove Jesus Existed |
There’s been a great deal of discussion lately, triggered by the claims of James Cameron that the bones of Jesus have been discovered, about whether Jesus ever actually existed at all.
In the interest of furthering that discussion in a serious, fact-based manner, I issue the following challenge: Prove that Jesus existed.
By proof I mean this:
- Provide evidence that Jesus actually lived, and is not just a legendary character
- Prove Jesus really lived beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that a reason-based argument could not refute your proof, not just that most sensible people would agree with you.
- “Scripture” is not to be considered as evidence. After all, what the word “scripture” means is just something that somebody has written. Some people have written that Santa Claus really exists, and that doesn’t make it so.
- Faith and other forms of subjective experience are not proof.
- Failure to accept alternatives to the existence of Jesus is not proof. For example, saying “Well, I can’t imagine what else could have led people to write the Bible and found Christianity” is not finding proof. It’s only showing that you can’t imagine something.
One more reminder for the discussion: The topic is whether it can be proved that Jesus really existed. The topic is not whether it can be proved that Jesus did not exist. That’s a different question.
So, any takers?
What proof does anyone have that Pergrin Wood really existed and is not just a legendary character?
Comment by Anonymous — 2/28/2007 @ 6:38 pm
That’s what I thought.
Comment by Anonymous — 2/28/2007 @ 7:34 pm
You’re off-topic, anonymous. I am not Jesus.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/1/2007 @ 5:57 am
Well, the solipsists believe that only they exist, and that all else is but their imagination or mind. (Can you imagine a convention?) Sn old Roman historian named Josephus mentions Jesus in his ancient writing, but who’s to say that Josephus existed (except on “paper” perhaps)?
Comment by Tom — 3/1/2007 @ 8:11 am
Not off topic at all. Peregrin has given a whole list of reasons he would not accept, but what reason WOULD he accept? The most obvious example of whether he himself exists, and I am assuming he thinks he exists, he is not able to demonstrate. So what criteria would he accept to demonstate the existence of someone 2000 years ago when he cannot prove his own existence today?
So is Peregrin really interested in how to prove the existence of historical figures, or does he have an ax to grind?
Comment by Anonymous — 3/1/2007 @ 11:28 am
Anonymous, whether Peregrin has an ax to grind is completely irrelevant. Proof is proof.
Do you have it, or don’t you?
Comment by J. Clifford — 3/1/2007 @ 11:34 am
Well, I was going to say Peregrin might exist because he seems to be writing stuff. But if you look at number three, writing is not one of the things Peregrin will accept to prove someone’s existence.
I was also going to say Peregrin might exist because he seems to have a unique personality, even if he doesn’t want to seriously consider anything anyone else says. But if you look at number four, detecting a personality is pretty subjective.
I can’t really imagine how there would be this whole big website and a bunch of typing on it and not have a person actually doing the typing, but if you look at number 5, Peregrin doesn’t like that type of argument either. Peregrin doesn’t like much of anything. If there really is a Peregrin.
I kinda like Tom’s analysis. I think I’ll become one of those solipsists and go off and talk to myself now.
Comment by Anonymous — 3/1/2007 @ 12:33 pm
So, Anonymous does not have any proof that Jesus ever existed.
Comment by J. Clifford — 3/1/2007 @ 12:47 pm
Peregrin still has not said what proof he would accept.
Pretty convenient, isn’t it. Then no matter what someone says, he can just say, ‘that’s not good enough, that’s not good enough’ and think of some excuses to reject it. If he were to say up front what he would consider to be a valid proof, that would go a long way towards convincing me he is asking a serious question and not just trying to play a semantic trick.
If someone asked Peregrin to prove his identity he would probably show a driver’s license. I’m not sure I can show him a driver’s license for Jesus Christ. But you need some other ID to get a driver’s license, say a birth certificate. So where would JC’s birth certificate be after 2000 years?
When someone wants to prove their identity in the middle east, they get a paper from the village official who is in charge of remembering the names and relationships in the village. That is exactly what Jesus did. If you recall that in those days Caesar Augustus decreed that all the world should be enrolled, so Mary and Joseph had to return to Joeseph’s home village of Nazareth for the census. In Nazareth were the old timers who remembered his identity. As a backup, anyone could check the records of the Roman Empire for Nazareth and know who he was.
No one of that era questioned whether Jesus actually existed. The real question was whether he was the messiah. For that, the gospel writers delved into his ancestry. According to Isaiah, the messiah would come from the house of David–”Jesse’s reed”. Various Biblical writers managed to trace Jesus’ ancestry back to David through both Joseph (!)and Mary.
So now, what proof does anyone have that jClifford ever existed?
And now, if you guys will get off my case, I have the whole world of solipsism yet to explore.
Comment by Anonymous — 3/1/2007 @ 3:12 pm
Well, Anonymous, I’m pretty clear on this point.
You’re right, for example, that if I can think of some solid reasons to reject your supposed proof, then your proof isn’t good enough. That’s what “Prove Jesus really lived beyond a reasonable doubt” means. Do you really think that it’s unfair for people to critically examine what you claim is proof?
This is a challenge to you, not a challenge for me. If you don’t like the terms, tough. I’m just asking for solid evidence that Jesus actually lived.
It’s apparent that you can’t give me that proof, and I’m sensing that upsets you. That emotional reaction to the lack of proof that Jesus ever lived is your problem, not mine.
The best you’re doing so far is to claim that nobody from around the time that Jesus is purported to have lived questioned the existence of Jesus. Do you have any proof that’s the case? Can you prove that nobody doubted the existence of Jesus at the time?
You’re asking me to make some huge assumptions if you expect me to accept such a claim without proof.
I’m not on your “case”. You volunteered to try your hand at the challenge and failed.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/1/2007 @ 4:36 pm
What/which Jesus are you talking about Peregrin?
The one who sells tapas at the corner of my street?
Comment by Yo.be — 3/1/2007 @ 5:21 pm
Good one, Yo.be
Comment by J. Clifford — 3/1/2007 @ 5:28 pm
Two things PW, questions really, because I can sorta understand where anonymous is coming from.
First thing - you use the word “exist” as well as “live” in your post. “Live” is understandable, life, breathe etc. but exist…..persist, remain, prevail…using that word, than yes, but according to your rules, we cant use written word so there ends the proof.
Second thing, everyone has been told stories about how they’re ancestors got to this country and where they came from, I am Irish, Polish, Czech and Norwegian. I know for fact that my family comes from Tronheim in Norway because it has been very meticulously documented. Now as for the rest of my family heritage, just bits and peices and the stories my mother and father and grandmother told me, but I believe whole heartedly that I am Irish, Polish, Czech, and Norwegian.
Stories, this whole world is built on stories, does anyone know for a fact that their great great grandfather truly lived? Have they seen the grave? Are they lucky enough to have pictures? My grandparents grave in Manhatten will be filled in and a new grave put on top in 2048 because the 100 year lease will be up. Does this mean they no longer exist/ or lived because the only thing I have are stories?
Do I have proof that Jesus lived - none that you will accept but then again you never will. And you are challenging those here that don’t care?
Comment by Laurie O — 3/1/2007 @ 5:29 pm
Laurie,
The word “exist” is really very simple. From the American Heritage Dictionary, first definiton: “To have actual being; be real”. The opposite of this is to not have actual being, and not be real, but be imagined, like a fictional character or a legend.
The rest of is off topic, but I’ll nibble back because I think that you’re writing with good intentions - unlike Anonymous, who is merely trying to be disruptive. You’re not able to meet the challenge to prove that Jesus existed, and I appreciate that you admit that.
By definition, we all have great great grandfathers. Everyone has to have a father, and that includes our great grandparents. That, and sometimes photographs, and legal certificates, come together to create a plausible degree of proof. Some people have no proof about who those great great grandfathers were - adopted people, for example, but we know that they did exist. You can say that you believe that you are Irish, Polish, Czech, and Norwegian, but you cannot really know that it’s true. You don’t have proof of that.
Whether people care that the existence of Jesus is not the point. I’m challenging people to prove that Jesus really existed, because I care about the matter. Those who don’t care won’t respond.
I care because so many people who do believe in the literal historical existence of Jesus are organizing politically in order to try to impose their beliefs about Jesus on me and my children.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/1/2007 @ 5:53 pm
Peregrin, you still have not said what type of evidence you would be willing to accept. If you don’t agree with me, don’t just say I’m “disruptive”, say what you don’t agree with.
Whether Peregrin accepts my evidence or not, I do believe I have proved the existence of Jesus more thoroughly than the existence of Peregrin (or myself) will be provable in two thousand years time.
At the time the gospels were written the Roman empire was still in existence and if Jesus was indeed not in the Galilee census, they would have known about it in that era. There is just too much detail about his life and teachings for there NOT to have been a person of that description.
Now whether the events got conflated with another individual or with some cult rituals gets harder to guess. There is clearly a lot of syncretism going on here. And whatever you believe about the divinity of Jesus gets even further along the continuum away from historical reality and into the realm of belief.
But why does Peregrin seem so threatened by all of this? Is it necessary to believe Jesus was not a historical person in order to be an atheist?
Finding Jesus’ bones might be even more disturbing to atheists!
Comment by Anonymous — 3/1/2007 @ 6:20 pm
Anonymous, you’re clearly not following the terms. I’ve laid down the parameters quite clearly.
You insist on answering the question with questions - questions like whether I can prove that I exist. That’s not on topic, and you know it. It certainly isn’t proof.
You haven’t offered a shred of reliable proof that Jesus actually existed. Saying that there is too much detail about the life and teachings of Jesus for there NOT to have been a person of his description is not proof. It’s doing exactly what I warn about in #5 in the section about the definition of what is and what is not proof.
You can’t imagine how people could have written in detail about a person who is not real. I ask you to consider Superman, a legendary character. Much, much more detail about the life of Superman has been revealed in less than a century than people were able to put together in the same amount of time that people put together stories about the life of Jesus. By your logic, Superman must be real, only on account of the very detailed story of his life. In fact, by your argument, there is more reason to believe that Superman is a real person than there is to believe that Jesus was a real person. After all, there is more detail about the life of Superman.
Please don’t protest against the terms of the challenge if you’re not willing to pay attention to them.
As to why I’m threatened by it, well, that’s quite clear. Biblical literalists are seeking to overturn the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom from government establishment of religion. With that overthrown, I have no guarantee of freedom to be who I am, free of the obligation to worship. That’s a situation we all ought to be afraid of, because with government establishment of religion, religious people lose their freedom too.
Think the Dark Ages. Think the Spanish Inquisition. Think theocracy. My life and liberty are under direct threat from this dangerous ideology.
The challenge is not whether I can come up with an adequate set of criteria for proving that Jesus really existed. The challenge is for YOU to do it.
This is a rhetorical tactic you’re using to avoid the fact that you cannot prove the existence of Jesus, by the clear rules I’ve stated. I’m calling you on it, and you keep trying it, Anonymous. That’s why I say you’re being disruptive.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/1/2007 @ 6:49 pm
This is a weird one.
FACT: Jesus existed. In fact, a whole bunch. It’s a pretty common name of the time (as is Joshua and all the name’s other forms).
Was one of them a son of a Jewish carpenter: Most certainly one or more
Was one of them born of a virgin: Born of a Jewish wife within one year of her marriage? Yes.
Was one of them the son of a permanent virgin: Err, no. Not even the Bible claims that.
Was one of them into preaching about the Jewish god: I expect so
Was one of them not popular with the government: Who was?
It’s an interesting legend and claiming that all legends are purely fiction because they revolve around one character isn’t practical.
I understand where you’re coming from but it’ll be damn hard to prove that anyone existed several thousand years ago without resorting to DNA evidence, which hardly gives us names.
The Robin Hood legend was mostly centred around Robin Hode, but his story still moved to a different place and era and got a different spin on it (about how nice the king was when he was about, things like that).
He’s also a mix of various other people from the time.
I expect the same applies to Jesus. With some of the more magical parts of his story being pulled over from other legends, like this lot: http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html
I don’t think it’s rational to base faith on the claim that it was all one person because he was powered with devine magic, but I’m not about to question it having some basis in reality either.
Comment by HareTrinity — 3/2/2007 @ 9:58 am
Anonymous,
I don’t believe that PW ever stated he was an athiest. I am not an athiest but do believe in the seperation of church and state. The politicians of this country have imposed their religious beliefs by calling them “morals” and “character”. We as citizens of this great country can have morals and character without following christianiity, that is why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written. But over and over again as PW has stated the church has taken over, I will lose my rights as a women, you will lose your rights as an individual, and the balance of this country (which is speedily being eroded in the name of Jesus) will also be lost.
In the name of Jesus, In the name of God is okay in your holy place but do you really want legislation being approve in the name of God or Jesus?
PW gave you the guidelines, plus the fact with all your statements, no proof of this census.
Peregrin,
Thanks for biting - I do understand what you are getting at and it plagues me every day. I have not entered a church in 8 years because the pastor’s preach politics in church like our politicians preach religion. Besides faith and hope that I still cling to….I have nothing to offer as proof.
Comment by Laurie O — 3/2/2007 @ 10:00 am
Laurie - Good points.
I’m not against people believing things based on faith. I’m against people claiming certainty when there is no basis for it, and then telling other people what to do based on that certainty.
That’s why I’m asking for proof that Jesus (the Jesus Christ of the Christian Holy Bible) was a real historical person. I want these assumptions that the fundamentalist Christian theocrats are counting upon to be questioned. I want people to examine what they presume to be true.
If people decide that they’ll choose to believe without proof, that’s another issue.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/2/2007 @ 1:03 pm
The historical existence of Jesus is based on three things:
1)identification by people who knew him and his family in his home town Nazareth
2)census taken by Roman empire
3)geneologies linking Jesus to historical Israeli founding leaders
These three things that established the identity of Jesus in antiquity are the same three things that we use to establish identity today.
#1: If anyone knows someone who has had a security
clearance, they go back to the person’s hometown as in 1)and interview people who knew them back when. During the cold war days of suspected “sleepers” this would root out a Russian spy with a fake identity and no past.
#2: I have seen census data on my family going back a hundred years or so and it seems to be pretty accurate, in spite of language barriers–ages seem to be only appproximate though.
#3: Public geneologies–I have seen one of these where an ancestor of mine was identified in a small-town event, and the geneology seems pretty accurate, although the details of my ancestor’s role in the event differs by the recollection of different eyewitnesses. This goes back some 400 years–before independence, so the record is purely local, not in any national or international source. Some geneological info going back to 10th c I would question more–it seems I have French ancestors who participated in the Norman Invasion–but why would this info not be accurate as well?
Superman would not pass any of these three tests–unless he was maybe related to George Washington or Strom Thurmond….
If jClifford doesn’t think they are the correct way to establish identity, please say why he doesn’t like them and what he wouod find convincing.
Which of these personages are real: Buddha, Mohammed, Gengis Khan, Ghandi, Charlemaigne, George Washington, Joseph Smith, Hitler, Mata Hari, jClifford. Why do you consider them real or not real?
All this talk about “The Church, The Politicians” as if they were a monolithic illiterati….what’s that about? I don’t have any politicians imposing their beliefs on me. The dozen or so churches around here leave me alone. But jClifford’s refusal to answer my question about what criteria he would use to prove he himself exists….is everyone is just reacting out of fear instead of looking for facts? Perhaps jclifford thinks if only he get people to think Jesus did not exist regardless of the facts, he can prevent “dark ages, theogracy, spanish inquisition” from occuring. If only everyone else was atheist like himself, then he would not have to fear….
Comment by Anonymous — 3/2/2007 @ 4:49 pm
1. There is no historical evidence of testimony about Jesus from anyone who personally knew Jesus. Disagree with that? Show me the evidence. Give us a photograph of them. Where is it?
2. There are no census records that identify the Jesus written about in the Bible. Disagree with me? Show me the records. Show me a photographed copy of them. Show me the part of these census records that identify Jesus.
3. There is historical evidence backing up the claim that Jesus is real the descendant of David, only claims. Disagree with me? Show me the historical evidence. Where is it? Where is the evidence that Jesus was descended from the founders of Israel? What form does that evidence take? DNA? Birth certificates?
Numbers one, two and three that “Anonymous” cites as proof that Jesus existed are claims, not proof.
There is no evidence supporting that these three things are anything but assertions.
1. I can assert that there are people who know Superman and his family.
2. I can assert that there is a census showing that Clark Kent really did grow up in Kansas as the son of a Mr. and Mrs. Kent.
3. I can say that there are geneologies that prove that Superman is descended from Genghis Khan.
I can say all these things, just like Anonymous has. That doesn’t mean I’ve proved that Superman exists. It means I’ve made a bunch of claims, and not backed them up with any evidence. I still don’t have proof that Superman exists.
Where is the proof? Why, if your belief is founded in fact and not just faith, are you unable to provide me with proof?
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/2/2007 @ 7:03 pm
Finally after 21 posts we find out what kind of evidence Peregrin would regard as proof. Photographs. From 2000 years ago.
How reassuring that Peregrin is so genuinely interested in how to prove the existence of historical figures, and doesn’t just have an ax to grind.
Comment by Anonymous — 3/2/2007 @ 9:01 pm
Or did it not occur to you, Anonymous, that Mr. Wood might not be talking about photographs as evidence but photographic copies of existing evidence which you have still failed to provide, choosing rather to respond with a “Haha, I’m right, I told ya so!” remark.
You’d been screaming at him as to what he would accept as proof, he gave it to you, so why don’t you show us the historical documents, birth certificates, census documents, and written depositions asserting that someone knew and/or was related to Lord Jesus Christ Almighty Ruler of The Earth For All Eternity.
And please refrain from dodging the challenge, throwing up straw-man arguments, and answering questions with questions.
Comment by Damen — 3/3/2007 @ 4:42 am
I’ve been reading this thread all the way through, and I have yet to see any proof that Jesus existed.
Provide.
The.
Proof.
Comment by Jim — 3/3/2007 @ 6:33 am
Damen is exactly right. I want proof that these things that you claim exist. A photograph of these supposed sources of proof, along with other information for authentication, so that we know you’re not just doing a fake photo, would be good proof.
For example, a photo of the census records
Of course, you can’t do that. The reason is that there’s no evidence for you to show me a picture of.
You know that you have no proof that Jesus ever lived. It makes you angry. I understand that, but you could at least admit it.
Prove it. Don’t just say it. Don’t just claim it.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/3/2007 @ 6:55 am
Is Peregrin asking his question in good faith? The very way Peregrin’s question was framed makes me question this. After all, would he question whether Mohammed existed, whether Buddha existed, whether Moses existed?
Peregrin’s “guidelines” are also pretty suspicious. Would we say ‘prove George Washington ever existed without using written documents’? Or ‘prove Alexander the Great existed without using written documents’? It sounds like Peregrin already knows the proof exists and doesn’t want it used.
Secondly, why is Peregrin sidestepping the issue of what proofs we accept for other historical figures? In his discussion of Superman, Peregrin uses Genghis Khan as an example of a historical figure. Why does Peregrin accept Genghis Khan as historical? Where are the photographs, the census records, the photocopies? Clearly Peregrin expects a different standard of proof for Genghis Khan.
No one claims Superman is in the census records. No one claims they have talked to people who knew Superman in his home town. No one has claimed Superman is related to a known historical person. None of that is part of the Superman story. Why do you suppose that is? Because it’s just too easy to check. Anyone who tried to make that claim would be very quickly discredited. Those claims were made about Jesus precisely because they were easy to check.
And now the munchkins are chiming in and demanding a birth certificate for Jesus Christ. Birth certificates–in the Middle East!
Who has made any claim that Jesus is “Almighty Ruler of The Earth For All Eternity”? Jesus himself said “My kingdom is not of this world”.
Where are the written dispositions from someone who knew Jesus? Try Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
It is crystal clear to me that all these people who just want to argue against the historical existence of Jesus have not so much as read the New Testament. Stop treating the Bible as a collection of magical talismans and treat it like any other historical document. Pick up a Bible, a readable translation like NIV, TNIV or NRSV and start leafing through Matthew. This is also the season when a lot of short-term Bible classes are forming. If you are lucky, you can find one taught by a good theologian.
Then re-think your own religion and how you are going to celebrate the return of spring. Is it enough just to dethatch your lawn and pick up the dogshit, or do you want something more profound?
It doesn’t particularly matter to me personally whether Jesus existed as a historical person or a mythical person. My reading of the material says both. It does matter to me how IT writers frame their thinking and do their homework. If their political thinking is as sloppy as their religious thinking, I’m going to have to think again about issues like the Military Commissions Act, the minimum wage, and IT’s other positions that orginally did not seem so extreme to me.
Comment by Anonymous — 3/3/2007 @ 11:15 am
You know, to read this thread, you’d think the theme of the thread was:
Pick Apart the Semantic Minutiae and Implicit Assumptions Underlying Peregrin Wood’s Challenge to Prove That Jesus Existed
Comment by Ralph — 3/3/2007 @ 11:37 am
Well, that’s about it Ralph, if you want to phrase it quite that baldly. PW accepts the historiocity of certain figures with no documentation whatsoever, but won’t even examine the source documents for JC. What’s left to discuss?
PW’s thesis seems to be that he is being persecuted because some people think Jesus was a historical figure. His fix: prevent people from thinking Jesus was a historical figure.
I find the attempt at the establishment of un-religion just as offensive as the attempt at the establishment of religion.
Funny how people who don’t belong to a particular ethnic or religious group seem to think they can read the minds of those who do–and they always attribute some nasty kind of thoughts to Those Other People, of course. At the same time they can give us little clue of their own minds…
Maybe the real explanation is a bit more crass. Cameron wants to sell a lot of books by cashing in on the religious season, and IT wants to get better google position by publishing a lot of rambling, repetitive articles with the word Jesus in the title. Whatever the explanation, I’m getting bored with it.
Comment by Anonymous — 3/3/2007 @ 2:29 pm
JeHAYsus LuHIves! Say it with MUH now. JeHAYsus LuHIVes! JeHAYsus told me suhow. Say it aGAYyun. JeHAYsus LuHIves!
Comment by Timmay! — 3/3/2007 @ 2:36 pm
Anonymous, once again, you fail to understand what this is all about.
This is a challenge. The challenge is to prove that Jesus actually existed.
So far, you’ve failed. You haven’t introduced any proof. You’ve only made claims, and tried to distract from the challenge, distorting what other people have said.
You have no evidence Jesus existed. We can see that quite clearly.
Anyone else want to try?
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/3/2007 @ 2:45 pm
I don’t recall Peregrin accepting anyone’s historicity without any evidence. Of course, the question depends on what level of proof you demand in order to be certain.
Do a few shreds of historical documentation, some of which correspond to hagiographic accounts, allow you to conclude with certainty that a person existed? With what level of probability? 10%? 20%? If you meet a person, speak to them, and shake their hand, does that allow you to conclude with certainty that the person existed? You can be no more certain of that person’s existence than you are certain you weren’t dreaming, or hallucinating, or the possibility that you just recall incorrectly. 98% probability? Over 99%? Never quite gets to 100%, does it?
Yet this flaw in Peregrin’s question matches a corresponding flaw in the claim that any person can be 100% certain that Jesus lived. What kind of evidence are THEY taking as proof? The flaw is inherent in the claim Peregrin is questioning, and that makes it fair game.
What kind of superman do you have to be to outrun the Zeno’s arrow of human uncertainty and cross the finish line at 100% certitude? The only possible answer, if you’re honest about it, is that you have a special kind of other-worldly knowledge that can be certain because it comes from God.
Peregrin might be making fun of that claim a little bit, which isn’t something I’m as interested in doing. But it’s fair game and politically relevant to do so when you have a chief executive and commander in chief whose favorite political philosopher is Jesus funneling tax money to religious political allies, and making policy decisions based on claims to 100% certainty that he attributes to his gut and God.
Comment by Ralph — 3/3/2007 @ 4:38 pm
No, we haven’t proved a reasonable person would agree there is no evidence that Jesus existed. We have only proved that Peregrin and his atheist friends would agree Jesus never existed.
The existence of Genghis Khan, with no evidence at all, is taken for granted. There must be something besides reason that can acount for this disparity.
If you close your eyes and clap your hands and keep repeating “there is no evidence, there is no evidence” well, maybe you can really believe there is no evidence, if that’s what makes your internal world more comfortable.
I will believe Peregrin thinks his question is politically revelant when he also questions the existence of the prophet Mohammed. You know, the Religion of Peace, whose political figures funnel oil money to religious entities who in turn fly jet planes into New York buildings while shouting ‘Allahu al akbar’?
Have you read the New Testament yet, Ralph?
Comment by Anonymous — 3/3/2007 @ 5:20 pm
anonymous, i am not a complete moron. i notice your switch from peregrin wood’s “proof” to your “evidence that hesus existed.” you, on the other hand, are a complete fucking idiot if you think the two are equivalent. your standard is so pathetically easy to meet. oh lookee, people say yahwesus existed. now that’s “evidence that yawheesus existed”, but it’s fucking stupid evidence. it is nowhere near a proof. if you think that is good enuf, you are a disgrace to our lord of southwestern missouri state sovietskii universitat, nyet?
but thats ok, i forgive you for being this sort of potato pancake phillyosopher. see how christian i am? bless the sinner, hat ethe sin. all bless yahaaaaaysus!
Comment by Timmay! — 3/3/2007 @ 5:46 pm
on the other handy pandy, i notice that peregrin wood (what, is that some kind of golf club) himself asked for “evidence jawhoosie really lived” — well that’s stupid, since that is not proof. oh, wait, that was just one of five standards to be met, along with “only a paper moon” and “misty.” so ok, peregrin wood (nine iron?) is not a complete mahorron, he is only an unclear writer. peregrin (hawky tee?) you need to soak your pencils in mister cleen, to be more cleer, and anonymous, you need to put your brain in a bowl full of smarties overnite to sleep tite, not let the bed bugs bite, and then hope you can think cleerly in the morning. all sing and dance a jig to thewheyssus!
Comment by Timmay! — 3/3/2007 @ 5:52 pm
YAWHEEEESUS!
Comment by Timmay! — 3/3/2007 @ 5:53 pm
Anonymous, thus far the only form of “evidence” you’ve offered in support of the existence of Jesus Christ is the bible. I don’t consider the bible a valid document. The newest book to the Old Testament was written in 425 B.C. and the oldest version of the New Testament was written sometime in the early 50s A.D. while Jesus was said to have died anywhere from 29 to 36 A.D.
Show me a government office that would just now be drawing up the birth certificate and identification for anyone who died in 1987. Now if it were a document made during Jesus’ life it would be a different matter, however its not.
That being said, I’m actually interested to find out of this Jesus Christ person really did exist, but even if he did you’re still gonna have to prove to me that he was the magical son of this Almighty Invisible Wizard In The Sky.
Comment by Damen — 3/3/2007 @ 5:59 pm
Funny, I don’t recall typing “We have proved a reasonable person would agree there is no evidence that Jesus existed.” Nor do I see it in any of the posts above. You’re making it up and attributing it to me.
I state very clearly in my post that there IS evidence Jesus existed–some sparse historical evidence that alternately corroborates and deviates from four very popular hagiographic accounts. So there’s evidence, but it’s just not very strong. That’s entirely different from a claim that there is no evidence at all, which is just not a claim I made but one that you put into my mouth.
Whence your claim that there is no evidence at all for the existence of Genghis Khan? What are YOUR standards? Photographs? Videotape? There is preponderance of historical evidence pointing to Genghis Khan’s existence, but nothing that lets us conclude with 100% certainty that he lived. No circumstantial, empirical evidence ever gets you to 100% certainty.
It’s an interesting rhetorical move to interpret my statement that the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is less than 100% certain as a claim that there is no evidence whatsoever. All you need to do to defeat that straw man is to point to SOME evidence and then say:
“If you close your eyes and clap your hands and keep repeating ‘there is no evidence, there is no evidence’ well, maybe you can really believe there is no evidence, if that’s what makes your internal world more comfortable.”
Clever move, but it’s an argument against what you are trying to portray me as having said, not what I said. That’s not honest.
Another clever move is to imply that I am arguing that no “reasonable person” would believe in Jesus. Never said that, either. “Reasonable” is a normative judgment–one that’s open to interpretation. Putting those words in my mouth implies that I am judging everyone who believes in Jesus as unreasonable, which would make me a very judgmental and extreme person myself. Of course, I never said anything of the sort. But that’s an awfully convenient straw man to attack too, now isn’t it?
Thing about setting up straw men and attacking them is that it isn’t really honest, which weakens your argument. On top of that, it weakens any defense of Christianity when the defense itself violates one of the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt not lie).
Comment by Ralph — 3/3/2007 @ 5:59 pm
Timmay! you are certifiable but what a great accent. I love it. I suppose you listen to AM radio at night. Damen, if you look back in #9 you will see the middle east has no birth certificates, that is purely a western thing. I explain how they prove ancestry and how this was done by Jesus. The Arabs still do it today to establish identity and we do it too. I explain it more in comment 20.
You guys just want to argue and but none of you wants to read the New Testament. That makes it pretty hard for me to have an interesting conversation with you, interesting for me at least. I have now become a solipsist. (see comment #4) Poof. None of you exist. If you want to look for the gospel of Philip and other esoteric source material that the Mary Magdelene stuff is based on, here is a place for you to go play:
http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library.html
Now go! Go! Go frolic without me!
Anonymous and possibly Non-Existent
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/3/2007 @ 7:45 pm
Oh, I don’t think we deserve ALL the credit for your conversion to solipsism.
Comment by Ralph — 3/3/2007 @ 8:16 pm
See there ya go again, Anonymous. You knew damn well that I was using birth certificates as an example, yet you have no other argument so you act on the belief that I was being serious.
You keep waving the bible around as proof and yet I have explained to you why the bible is not a valid form of proof. Still, you keep on doing it because you have nothing else.
You’ve also tried to explain why there are no birth certificates for Jesus Christ and even referred me to one of your previous posts. However, the post you point out is flawed because you’ve also said that Jesus had proved his identity;
“When someone wants to prove their identity in the middle east, they get a paper from the village official who is in charge of remembering the names and relationships in the village. That is exactly what Jesus did.”
The glaring flaw in this is that you still have not shown us a photographic copy of this paper which could be considered proof and answer an age-old question as well as shutting up all the atheists around the world.
You keep asking how can we prove George Washington existed? I’ll tell you how, because we have official records from his lifetime showing us that he was in fact a general in the Continental Army and the first president of the United States of America and there are also records in the United Kingdom which corroborate this fact. We can also use this method, along with archaeological evidence to prove that Genghis Khan at one time did exist. However you have provided no records that can corroborate the existence of Jesus Christ.
In the face of this lack of evidence, you go on to wax philosophy (Do you exist? Do I exist? Does this bean burrito exist and if it does not then why does eating it give me gas?) and try to pass that off as evidence or an explanation as to why Jesus might have existed in the absence of evidence. This has also become patented answer you’ve given in response to the challenge of providing evidence and you’ve done quite well to hide behind it. I’m sure it served you well in the past but its not going to work with me.
That’s all well and good but philosophy is not scientific evidence and thus your arguments fall as flat as people once thought the earth to be. You have been challenged to provide scientific evidence and you have failed spectacularly and so you attempt to pass the buck onto us to prove we exist in an effort to avoid a challenge that you can’t win. It is a failure on par with with the flop that Cleopatra was at the box office.
You want me to prove that I exist? Okay, I’ll nibble at this bait and wax a little philosophy here: How about if I punch you in the face and then butt-fuck your mother? After all, if I don’t exist you won’t be hurt and/or offended, right?
You go on to say that none of us exist and yet you sure have wasted a lot of time arguing with non-existent people and failing in a way that sure is amusing to watch.
Comment by Damen — 3/3/2007 @ 8:31 pm
jaHEESUS frowns upon any, ah say ANY soul who writes about any (ah say ANY soul who writes about!!!!!!!) anything passing near a burrito.
PBTHHHHHHHHLBT! praise jahhheeeeeesusah!
Comment by Timmay! — 3/3/2007 @ 9:25 pm
YAAAAAHHHHHHHHHWEEEEEEEEEEH!
Comment by Timmay! — 3/3/2007 @ 9:25 pm
An American living in the Middle East went to the American embassy and claimed she had given birth to a child and wanted a birth certificate and an American passport for the child. “Can you express some milk,” the interviewer inquired chastely. She did, and was given the documentation.
Comment by Iroquois Honky — 3/3/2007 @ 9:37 pm
Anonymous, a reminder.
The challenge is for you, the reader to prove that Jesus existed.
Looks like you can’t do it. Maybe you don’t like the idea that I have issued this challenge, but that’s tough. I’ve issued the challenge for anyone to come here and prove that Jesus exists. The challenge is on.
No one has met the challenge.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/4/2007 @ 3:20 am
Maybe the evidence can be found in a “Marketing 101″ class from God.
Without controversy, things seem to fade away and become forgotten. Hollywood is a perfect example.
Do you think God may have been the very first “spin-doctor?”
Comment by Diane — 3/4/2007 @ 3:23 am
Peregrin, I would like to refer you to something I read tonight on zaadz.com posted by georgemarc (I apologive, but I don’t know how to include the link). This person has written the most beautiful description of what real love is - as he puts it - The Heart is True Love. The simple fact that there is love in this world is proof enough for me that Jesus exists and we need to do a better job of spreading that proof around. He was and is the Teacher of TRUE LOVE.
Comment by Diane — 3/4/2007 @ 4:29 am
Well, if that’s enough for you, that’s enough for you.
I hope you can understand that’s not proof enough for anyone else.
After all, I could write: “The simple fact that there is love in this world is proof enough for me that Dionysus exists. Dionysus is the teacher of pure love.” That would be a statement of faith, not a statement that would convince many people who don’t already have belief in Dionysus.
Um, if Jesus was the teacher of true love, how come the gospels record him as speaking hatred against so many others? The Bible isn’t a good source for what really happened even if Jesus was real, but surely that must be a conflict within your own faith.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/4/2007 @ 4:35 am
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” This is what Jesus taught and is the only thing I follow. I never understood the doctrines and laws of churches and have never followed any of them.
Comment by Diane — 3/4/2007 @ 5:01 am
Jesus didn’t teach hatred, Peregrin, you really need to crack a Bible and read for yourself.
Comment by Iroquois Honky — 3/4/2007 @ 4:51 pm
Oh yes, Jesus said he would throw people into a lake of fire for refusing to follow him, but do it lovingly, not out of hate. Sure.
“he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.”
“I am come to send fire on the earth… Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
“Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.”
Grind him to powder, but not with hate. Right.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/4/2007 @ 6:32 pm
GAAAAWD hated the little figs so much he gave them his only son to wither them with his exray vision. paRAYS JEHASSSSSSSUS!! YAHWEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
Comment by Timmay! — 3/4/2007 @ 9:24 pm
I don’t see any lake of fire in there anywhere, Peregrin. And what’s with the -eth stuff? If you want to read Bible for comprehension and not for whistling in the dark, you need a translation that is less than 500 years old. I mean they HAVE discovered some manuscripts and stuff. And where does it say people are supposed to hate?
You can’t take one small phrase out of context, you have to read the whole chapter. A lot of the stuff you are quoting is part of a series of parables. You have to read all the parables in the context of an event to get the meaning. Some of the meanings in the above passages are a reference to Old Testament prophecy, to call attention to events that had been predicted as a sign of the Messiah. Others are part of the ongoing quarrel Jesus had with the authorities over their hypocrisy in blindly following the law without campassion. A good place for you to start reading Bible would be the Sermon On The Mount in Matthew, often considered to be the single most original piece of theology in the NT.
Thinking more about the teaching of the NT about hate… consider what Jesus taught about the Roman soldiers occupying the country. According to law under the occupation, a Roman soldier could compel someone to walk a mile with him and carry his coat. Jesus said if a soldier compels you to go a mile with him, go two miles. If he compels you to carry his coat, carry his cloak as well. This is a far cry from sending car bombs at an occupying army. Jesus says you have to love your enemies–to treat the person persecuting you as a person and actively help them.
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/5/2007 @ 12:17 am
Oh, so the Sermon on the Mount is the key to the whole New Testament, which is the key to the whole Bible, which is the key to God, the universe, and everything.
How do you know they key to it all isn’t, like, Revelation?
Comment by Ralph — 3/5/2007 @ 1:31 am
Alright Damen, I’ll pretend you exist long enough to consider your criterion in comment #40.
First, for a person that’s alive it’s a little easier to prove their existence, like for instance if they hurt you or if you can see or hear them or sense them in some way. Of course you might be hallucinating and they’re not really there. Or if you want to get metaphysical, you don’t know if you’re a butterfly dreaming you’re a man, or a man dreaming you’re a butterfly. But a reasonable person would say that Peregrin exists and Damen exists and Ralph exists, although they are just electrons on a screen and it’s entirely possible they are just someone’s sock puppets.
So right off the bat, none of us can meet Ralph’s “100% for-sure positive” criterion, but a reasonable person would say we all exist.
Now, what about dead people? They can’t jump up and punch you, so how do you know they existed.
First take George Washington. Official records. If you read 1984, you know records can be forged and stuff can go down the memory hole. The yellow cake incident probably isn’t the first time the American and British governments have collaborated on propaganda. But if George’s buddies in the governmnet made sure there were papers about him that got in, well, I’m ready to think he existed. If you look at Peregrin’s #3 though, that’s written, and written stuff is not one of the things Peregrin will accept as proof. Where is the record of George Washington in China? Where is the record in India? I don’t know of any. So the existence of George Washington has not been proven.
Genghis Khan. No I don’t think there is any archeological evidence of that one. As I recall he was supposed to be part of a nomadic horde that swept across the steppes of Asia, living on their horses and eating yoghurt out of dead animal stomachs. I don’t know of any written records, but there is certainly geneological information and an oral tradition. I can’t imagine any other way so many populations could have been displaced without Ghengis Khan existing, but if you look at Peregrin’s stipulation #5, that doesn’t prove Ghengis Khan existed, it just means I can’t imagine anything. By Ralph’s rather stingy criteria too, Genghis khan looks like he has about a 20% chance of ever existing, but I personally think he existed.
Let’s take a more recent historical general, Alexander the Great. How many cities in the Middle East and Europe are named for him, starting with Alexandria in Egypt? But that’s using too much imagination. Peregrin wants a reason-based argument. Okay, there were two generals who were eye-witnesses to his travels and wrote about it. Every other account of Alexander is based on those two generals. His buddies. How easy is THAT to fake. Plus, I have never been able to find a translation of either one, and I have looked. Oh, and we have a geneology of Alexander too, although there are those who say he was really descended from a god, since his mother was part of some snake cult. On the other hand, Jesus had Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to write about his travels. But part of Peregrin’s stipulation is that written accounts can’t be used. So by those standards, we can’t accept the writings of Alexander’s buddies and Alexander the Great can’t exist.
So where are we here in the discussion? I think I’m alive, but by Peregrin’s standards I’m not. I also think Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, Jesus, and George Washington were alive, but by Peregrin’s standards, that is not proven. By the standards Peregrin has set, no one, not even Peregrin himself can be proven to exist.
So I think I’ll just go back to talking to myself now.
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/5/2007 @ 1:36 am
Revelation, Ralph? That convoluted mess? Basically, context. The convention in those times was to write about current events and current political figures in a future prophesy-type manner. It was too dangerous to speak openly. Does anyone reallly think the ‘whore of Babylon’ was anything besides the Roman Empire and that the writer of Revelation wrote in that style for any other reason than to get his letters past the jailors? And how do people talk after a little extended vacation time at Guantanamo? They’ll be lucky to make half as much sense as Revelation.
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/5/2007 @ 1:55 am
Anonymous you go to great lengths to attempt to backup your claims and now you’re just reaching into the land of the absurd. Tell me, Neo, how does it feel living in the Matrix?
Are you seriously trying to tell us that George Washington is a part of an international conspiracy and then you use a work of fiction to back up that claim? I’m going to go on the assumption that you’re using it as an example rather than being serious.
You want to ask how do we know dead people once existed? Well, when you die you tend to leave behind these things called bones. Bones have this nasty habit of sticking around for a few centuries. I think those are pretty good evidence that a person once existed.
You also say there’s no archaeological evidence for Genghis Khan, I’m afraid I have to inform you that you’re mistaken. Archaeologists found Khan’s palace in 2004: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189531/ Right, they haven’t found his body but his palace is more proof for his existence than you’ve given us for the existence for Jesus.
You also try to assert we can not be certain of Alexander the Great because his two buddies who wrote the most about him might have faked the information and then go on to cite Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in defense of Jesus. I find this either hypocritical or ignorant of you. Did it not occur to you that Jesus’ buddies might have faked the things they wrote about? Also, as limited as it is, there is still more archaeological evidence in support of Alexander the Great than you’ve provided in support of Jesus.
Here you go continuing to wax pseudo-philosophy with us and pass it off as evidence but the difference is that now you’re just looking like a goof-ball. I’ve told you what I (me, not Mr. Wood) would accept as a valid form of evidence in support of the existence of Jesus. Find me a copy of that certificate he had to get from his village elder that identified him and then tell me where the original can be found.
Stop coming here with your “you don’t exist” crap because as long as you keep popping on you’re admiting that we do in fact exist, otherwise you wouldn’t keep coming here. Your philosophical crap isn’t going to fly with me, give me scientific evidence, archaeological evidence, or admit you can’t meet the challenge and go away. I’ve told you what I’d accept, if your next post is more pseudo-philosophical babble you’re just going to confirm to all of us here that you’re an antagonistic fool.
Comment by Damen — 3/5/2007 @ 5:39 am
Once again, let’s get back to the topic.
Can anyone prove that Jesus actually existed?
So far, no.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/5/2007 @ 6:21 am
The reference to the Roman census is in Luke 2. I don’t know if they had any paper in those days. The whole point of the Christmas story is that Mary and Joseph were traveling to Joseph’s home town of Nazareth for the required Roman census when the child was born in Bethlehem. The Roman rulers who decreed the “enrollment” are known from other sources. Where are the birth certificates for George Washington and Ghengis Khan? There is not even any evidence they were ever in any census, the evidence for Jesus seems stronger here. The Roman empire was in existence for much much longer than the United States of America has been so far–the evidence of Jesus birth would have been easy to check up on for centuries.
Jesus wasn’t rich, he was a carpenter, so he didn’t have a palace. You can google photos of both the cave in Bethlehem where he was born and the tomb in Jerusalem that was donated by a wealthy person for his burial. If you accept the palace photos as proof, you will have to accept these photos as well.
The proof for Jesus Christ is much stronger than the proof for George Washington or Genghis Khan. If you accept the existence of those two, you will have to accept JC as well, or show, as Damen says, an “international conspiracy.”
But Damen’s last sentence is troubling. “An antagonistic fool”? Why the name-calling? The only reason I responded to Damen’s post is that he seemed to be discussing the question in good faith and not just because he had an ox to gore.
When someone starts in with the name-calling it’s usually because they have an emotional attachment to some side of a question but don’t have an actual reason-based argument to support it.
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/5/2007 @ 10:26 am
The Christmas story is a story. It has no source but the Bible, which is interpreted by many as more of a mythological text than an historical document.
The Bible is a book of belief, not evidence.
This isn’t proof at all. It’s just a reiteration of your beliefs, and it does not meet the explicit conditions of the challenge.
Still no evidence that Jesus ever existed at all.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/5/2007 @ 11:16 am
Sure, Revelation is a convoluted mess. Ever consider that a convoluted, semi-coherent mess might just be the key to understanding Christianity?
Of course you didn’t. Never even crossed your mind, did it? Because you started with all kinds of assumptions about the essential nature of Christianity as an eloquent, compassionate truth, then you set about finding a filter that would allow you to interpret the whole thing that way. That’s what you mean by “context.”
Comment by Ralph — 3/5/2007 @ 11:25 am
The Bible is not “a mythical book”. It is a collection of writings by many different authors from many different time periods. Many of these manuscripts have been discovered in authenticated archeological settings. If you do not accept this collection of writings, which is much more extensive than most, how can you accept the writings surrounding George Washington and Ghengis Khan? You can chant your “no evidence” mantra as much as you want to give you courage and help you believe, but what about a reason-based standard of proof that applies equally to all historical figures?
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/5/2007 @ 11:37 am
GK, you’re not making sense, and you don’t have any proof. You’re rambling.
This challenge is not about Genghis Khan, and it’s not about George Washington, and it’s not about me. Those are separate issues.
You’re relying on the Bible as proof of its own writings. That’s circular. It also breaks the guidelines of this challenge, which explicitly state: ““Scripture†is not to be considered as evidence.”
Whether you approve of the challenge is not the point. You have failed the challenge to provide evidence that Jesus ever existed.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/5/2007 @ 11:49 am
I’m making assumptions Ralph? Are you making assumptions that I’m making assumptions? Read Revelation for yourself. Does it contain the words of Jesus? It says not. It is part of the history of early christianity. You sound like the kind of guy who can pick up a document and read it on a lot of different levels–one of those levels is as an artifact from the past. You don’t have to believe in anything to read on that level.
Once again I am in the position of trying to explain something that is readily available for people to investigate for themselves, that they have not taken the time to investigate.
I find it remarkable that so many people want to make judgments about the bible without actually reading it.
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/5/2007 @ 11:55 am
Now see, GK, I never said Revelation contained the words of Jesus. Keep kicking that straw man.
You want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you use as a guide to reading the whole? Fine, enjoy.
But if you want to use that selective reading as ammunition to argue that other people are reading the Bible “out of context” because they haven’t arbitrarily picked the same parts that you’ve picked as “keys,” it doesn’t really fly.
Now argue against something I didn’t say and just go to town on that straw man. That’s very Christian of you (seriously, if you take Revelation and the brutal bits of the Old Testament as keys…).
Comment by Ralph — 3/5/2007 @ 2:40 pm
Sheesh, Ralph, you don’t have to get all upset or anything. If you want to start with Revelation go right ahead, be sure to let us know how that works out for you.
If the writer of Revelation (who names himself as “John”) was central to Christianity, it would be called, uh, Johnianity, right? Jesus Christ is central to Christianity.
If you were in a space ship and landed in the middle of the United States and wanted to try to understand it, which would help you the most: the latest state of the union address or a crossword magazine? I’d go for the summary speech, but that’s just me. The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, will give you different pictures of the life and teachings of Jesus. Matthew to me has the clearest explanatory voice, and the Sermon on the Mount is pretty much a policy speech. Revelation is a puzzle of symbolism.
By selective reading, I mean just reading one phrase or one sentence out of a whole explanatory passage. Many of Jesus’ teachings pile one story on top of another to make a point. If you just take one sentence out of context without reading the whole chapter, you won’t get the point. Sometimes you need the footnotes too.
For instance, the second passage Peregrin identifies is connected with the phrase “the stone the builders have rejected has become the cornerstone” and is uttered in the week before the crucifixion. This refers to an Old Testament passage–here Jesus is claiming to fulfill the Old Testament prophesy, not advocating hate. The Jews have rejected Jesus as messiah, but Jesus has become the cornerstone for the new faith. So you will understand this passage better if you read it as a theological underpinning for Holy Week.
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/6/2007 @ 12:51 am
If the writer of Matthew (who calls himself Matthew)were central to Christianity, it would be called, uh, Matthewianity, right?
If the writer of Mark (who calls himself Mark)were central to Christianity, it would be called, uh, Markianity, right?
If the writer of Luke (who calls himself Luke)were central to Christianity, it would be called, uh, Lukianity, right?
If the writer of John (who calls himself John)were central to Christianity, it would be called, uh, Johnianity, right?
Taking Revelation as the “key” to Christianity, we get the general following image: World starkly divided between different classes of people, some suffer miserably while others don’t and that’s as it should be, the world comes under the rulership of a single bad person (which is the bad news), but that single world ruler is deposed and replaced by a single good person (which is the good news).
Now, I’m not claiming that’s the “essence” of Christianity, but in some ways it does capture the reality of Christianity better than that sermon on the mount business.
By the way, do you follow all of the economic policies laid out by Jesus in Matthew? Or are those a “puzzle of symbolism” too?
Comment by Ralph — 3/6/2007 @ 4:26 am
Economic policies? You mean Jesus’ advice to a rich man–give everything you have to the poor? Yeah, I’ve done that a couple times, but not necessarily as a religious exercise. The rich guy just shook his head and walked away, demonstrating the difficulty of reconciling ethics with money. If someone wants to try to live an ethical life with wealth, I don’t have a problem with that, everyone has to find their own way.
The writers of the four gospels don’t talk about themselves at all or offer any original ideas or visons–they quote Jesus directly. It’s pretty much “Jesus went to this town and then he said the following…” type of thing.
What I get out of Revelation is basically how the first century Christians expected the Second Coming at any moment and ordered their lives accordingly. You’ve already got a lot more out of Revelation than I ever could. Maybe you have a calling in that direction.
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/6/2007 @ 5:50 pm
Putter-dude, I’ve got it for you!
No sweat, man.
Post up your email address, and I’ll send it right to you for examination.
I’ve got some photos of Jesus’ birthplace manger, a photo of a sanskript document that I’ve had carbon-dated to prove it’s age from a traveler that met Jesus personally and heard one of his sermons. It’s not a part of the Bible, so that should be good proof.
I’ve also found the real Shroud of Turin. Unlike the one publically displayed, mine has been carbon-dated to show, within the error of carbon-dating of course, that it came from the period of Jesus’ life on earth. It also carries with it, a nice document in Latin, bearing a Roman seal, that states where it came from and how it was obtained. I’ve got a great picture of it. Of course it’s location remains sealed for the protection of it’s current possessor.
Oh, and of course I have the crown of thorns. It has also been carbon-dated to place it in that time period. Doesn’t go down to the resolution of an exact year, but that’s science you know. It has Jesus’ dried blood still on some of the thorn ends. It’s a little hard to get an accurate DNA sample from something that old which is only dried blood that’s been exposed to the elements, and it’s hard to find a comparison sample of DNA, but I have it. I’ll send you the photo of it, as soon as you post your email address.
I also have a charcoal sketch from an eyewitness to Jesus’ assention into the sky. He drew it like right after he saw it, because he knew like, no one would believe him without like, a piece of paper to prove it. It’s also carbon-dated, natch.
The wrappings left in the tomb? Got ‘em. There’s some good DNA on those too, probably, like from some sweat or something. I’ll have the DNA compared to the thorn dried blood, and I’ll show you the lab report.
Eyewitnesses? Yup. I’ve just spoken with Satan. He’s the one who tempted Jesus with stuff. He said he remembers it very well to this day. And he’ll vouch that he was a real dude. I kinda think he’s still a little p-ssed at him, if you know whut I mean. He talks in my head a lot. I try to shut him out mostly, but this time I just let him ramble on.
I’ve got really lots more. If you want anything else specific, why just let me know what you want to see.
I’ve also got the original set of George Washington’s wooden teeth.
One word: Ultrabrite, dude. (whew)
Comment by SubAtomicFernParticle — 3/6/2007 @ 7:26 pm
What a fascinating discussion. As a historian, what separates the discussion on having “valid” proof that Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great or George Washington existed versus having “valid” proof that an alleged supernatural being named Christ existed in the physical human form as Joshua Ben Joseph is that keyword “supernatural.” When we discuss Khan, (Where are you William Shatner when I need you?) Alexander, George Washington, Plato, my grandfather’s best huntin’ dog, Smoky, etc., as far as I have learned, none of these historical figures ever had supernatural claims made about them.
The problem for a historian like me is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. This is true for any of history’s alleged “miracle workers.” I am open to possibility that there was a human being known as “Jesus of Nazareth” who was alive and active from 4 BCE through 29 CE. I am also open to the possibility that this “Jesus” fellow thought he was the Jewish Messiah and/or had followers who believed he was THE MESSIAH since self-proclaimed messiahs were quite common in that era.
My issue occurs when the NT proclaims that this Christ being performed supernatural acts, the biggie being the whole resurrection and ascension deal. I have yet to come across any sound evidence that makes a positive claim for the supernatural actions made by this Christ fellow or by any other person mentioned in any religious text ever written. The historical record makes a solid case that all of the supernatural claims made by the NT for the supernatural abilities of Christ can be found in prior religious traditions known to the authors of the NT; virgin birth, Magi visit, Star of Bethlehem, resurrection after being put to death by authorities, etc., etc. Sol Invictus or Mithra anyone?
So I keep an open mind about the possibility that a human being known as Jesus bar Joseph may have been born to a human mother and father, lived, had friends and followers and then died, I absolutely cannot accept any of the obviously mythological stories attributed to this human being without some pretty damn good evidence. You know, the kind that “H” would find while doing CSI: Jerusalem.
So was there a historical human being known as Jesus bar Joseph/Jesus of Nazareth… possibly. Was there a historical supernatural being known as the Christ who performed miracles and was crucified and arose on the third day to ascend back into Heaven, (which seemed to be located in Low Earth Orbit)? The answer for historians is a solid “No.” Like any good historian, I am ready to examine any extraordinary proof offered that this Christ was and is a real being. Until such evidence is offered for examination, the logical and rational choice is to accept that the whole Christ story was a myth based around a Jewish man who may or may not have lived back in 4 BCE through 29 CE.
So let’s move on and do something productive like discuss why we are still waging war in Iraq or allowing Dafur to continue to suffer or why we haven’t declared as a nation that we will undertake a “Manhattan Project” to end our dependence of fossil fuels, like oil, where the profits fund Middle Eastern religious fanatics who attack innocent people in the name of Allah. Just a thought. As for me, it’s obviously time to go watch another episode of Star Trek to clear my mind of this thread. May you all Live Long and Prosper.
Comment by Robert — 3/6/2007 @ 11:21 pm
I think, Robert, the Jews place JC a hundred years later or so, I’m not sure what that’s based on.
I don’t think anyone’s really interested in the miracle stuff, there’s nothing really historically unique about those claims. The question really revolves around whether JC lived or is totally legend.
I think the athiests are frustrated because there is no proof that disproves God, and they want some sort of scientific backing for their belief system. Politically they don’t want to get sucked up into a Christian Borg nation, but they seem to be trying to build their own atheist Borg monolith and assimilate as many as they can into it. They are trying to end polarization by using polarization. Either that or improve their google ranking.
I’m personally interested in mythology systems, ancient and medieval Golden Bough kind of stuff, and have yet to see a myth that had no backing in real life. I would like to approach Christianity in the same way one can approach myths to extract some universality about human spirituality and discover more about the way we think and what is important to us by the way we use symbols. BTW, Star Trek dovetails in there very nicely.
I just picked up a copy of the “New King James Version” of the Bible (somewhere to the right of the Southern Baptist Convention?), which makes the following claim in the preface:
Historians usually don’t touch religious subjects, maybe too politically sensitive or maybe the people with an ax to grind are already doing all the research, but it seems to me the existence of manuscripts, particularly the gospels, show some historical basis for the life of JC. Matthew in particular is supposed to be historically unique in its theology. What’s your take on these primary sources?
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/7/2007 @ 12:36 am
Well Robert, we are discussing those other, more productive issues here at Irregular Tmes as well. One discussion does not exclude another. Universities are able, for example, to teach both history and foreign languages. Students don’t have to choose between those. They can have both.
Could there have been a man named Homer who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey? Possibly. Keep an open mind about it? Maybe. But, there’s a lot of reason to believe that Homer is a legendary character.
Same thing about Jesus. There COULD have been a person named Jesus upon whom the stories of the Bible are loosely based. However, there COULD have been a person named Moesha who lived 2,000 years ago and travelled all the way from Israel to India riding backwards on a donkey. Space aliens COULD have come down in spaceships that looked like purple sharks two thousand years ago and implanted false memories of Jesus in people all arond the world, but only in Israel, with a few people did the operation take.
When you get into the realm of could-have-beens and possiblies two thousand years ago, almost anything is possible.
That’s why this challenge is not to say what could have possibly happened. That’s the job of historical novels. This challenge is to prove that Jesus really existed.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/7/2007 @ 5:42 am
That quote from the New King James Version of the Bible plays a nice trick by changing the question of authenticity to the New Testament as a document itself, and not to the things that the New Testament claims happened.
No one doubts that the New Testament exists. Many people doubt that Jesus ever existed.
There are not five thousand Greek manuscripts documenting the existence of Jesus dating to within a generation of the time that Jesus actually lived. The claim is made that there are five thousand Greek manuscripts dating to within a generation of the original writing of the Gospels that were included in the New Testament. That, in turn, took place well after the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived.
There were many other Gospels, of course, that were destroyed because they didn’t agree with the Gospels that were included. This looks like a politically-motivated literary editing process of a legend, not historical documentation of a real life.
Is there proof that the New Testament exists? Yes. I can pull a copy from many library shelves.
There is no proof that Jesus ever existed.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 3/7/2007 @ 5:51 am
The Jews destroyed old tattered manuscripts, not because they didn’t agree with the contents, but out of reverence for the sacred text. Of course that left few original old manuscripts to compare for accuracy until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Comparisons show high accuracy in copying over the centuries. Unless you’re refering to Gospel of Philip, Book of Enoch, and such–and some of these texts originally believed lost have been rediscovered, but if they weren’t originally included in the Bible, it’s probably because someone thought a different text was better, sort of like compiling the NYT bestseller list.
A curious example, Homer. The tales were in existence 500 years before being written down, about events that happened 400 years before THAT. Just as no one knows who wrote the four Gospels, no one knows who wrote the material attributed to Homer. But no one doubts that Troy existed.
Comment by Genghis Khan — 3/7/2007 @ 9:45 pm
Woodster:
What’s with you, man? I offered you up all kinds of proof I have, and you don’t bite!
You are starting to come off kind of insincere about your request. I offered up real evidence, and you ignore it! What a patsy.
You sound like a kind of melancholy, grumpy old fart that won’t believe anyone, even when they offer the proof to his face.
My offer of all the evidence I have is still good. I’ll