• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Proofs of Jesus outside of the Bible.

BayToBay said:
It appears to be the same information just formatted differently. Anyway, both indicate that the consensus is that one of the references is authentic and another is partially authenic.
Click to expand...

Yes.

And it either confirms what was said;
Manc Skipper said:
The Josephus "quote" is widely held to be a later fabrication.
Click to expand...
,​
in ones mind, or it provides an argument that it does not.


As far as I have read on the subject, Manc Skipper is correct and the "Arguments in favor of authenticity" can be simply dismissed.
 
Excon said:
Yes.

And it either confirms what was said;
,​
in ones mind, or it provides an argument that it does not.
As far as I have read on the subject, Manc Skipper is correct and the "Arguments in favor of authenticity" can be simply dismissed.
Click to expand...


I don't see how that is true. Wikipedia indicates that most scholars accept it as authentic.

The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[4][1][2][5][6][7] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[8][9][10]

Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[11][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[11][12][13][14][15] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[16] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like
 
Last edited:
Muddy Creek said:
Oddly enough, Horus was an Egyptian god who was around for about 600 years prior to anything about Christ and his life is the same as they claim the life of Christ.

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God

It would appear as though Paul wanted to get the pagans gone so he could be the favorite with the government.
Click to expand...

isn't that the crap peddled by Zeitgeist? Never saw the film, but have seen it's various claims debunked, even among the rationalist and atheist set
 
And therein lays the problem with concept of wiki and author bias.

As I said it provided information that supports both arguments.
And a person is going to accept that which is more believable to them.

And since I was referring to other my readings, wiki doesn't trump them.
 
Pinkie said:
For the sake of comparison, when Buddha is said to have lived, there (apparently) was no previously-existing religious or philosophical theory of reincarnation or nirvana.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the vedic belief in reincarnation that predates Buddhism?
 
Excon said:
And therein lays the problem with concept of wiki and author bias.

As I said it provided information that supports both arguments.

And since I was referring to other my readings, wiki doesn't trump them.
Click to expand...

It does not provide information that it is "widely held to be a fabrication."

Do you have some other citation? I have no idea whether it is correct or not and I don't know if anyone has ever done survey to determine what is "widely held" or not. The author of the wiki article references 15 sources for those two paragraphs.
 
Chelsea said:
I know there are some historical references aside from the New testament, that mention Jesus as a man/the Messiah. I'm not sure how accurate they are but one that is appealing to me is that of Josephus. Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus|Josephus a Jewish priest,wrote Antiquities | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Thats one link to Josephus, I know there are a few more ambiguous references also. Discuss...
Click to expand...

As I always understood it, Josephus mainly just compiled the various stories he heard. He had no means to independently investigate their veracity. Josephus' writings show that these stories were circulating at the time, but have no bearing on whether or not they are true. Just like someone compiling a tome of alien abduction stories today wouldn't make them true.

Pinkie said:
Who is Yeshua? Jesus Christ?

As for whether he was the Son of God, that falls entirely outside any scientific inquiry and squarely in the laps of religious leaders and philosophers.
Click to expand...

I would say that since his claims of divinity were rooted in the ability to perform miracles, those miracles are subject to scientific review.
 
BayToBay said:
It does not provide information that it is "widely held to be a fabrication."

Do you have some other citation? I have no idea whether it is correct or not and I don't know if anyone has ever done survey to determine what is "widely held" or not. The author of the wiki article references 15 sources for those two paragraphs.
Click to expand...
I do not believe I said that. Did I?

But wiki did source such information.


"Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium.[96] While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a [highlight]total forgery[/highlight], the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.[97][98]"​
 
Paschendale said:
As I always understood it, Josephus mainly just compiled the various stories he heard. He had no means to independently investigate their veracity. Josephus' writings show that these stories were circulating at the time, but have no bearing on whether or not they are true. Just like someone compiling a tome of alien abduction stories today wouldn't make them true.
Click to expand...

I don't know who this Josephus person is, but I agree -- his collection of what others were saying is not proof that their accounts were accurate. Unless they provided an account of JC's life that is at least somewhat original, it's virtually certain they were storytelling, not attempting to report.

Since there is almost no aspect of the JC story that wasn't previously mentioned in another religion's folklore, it is very unlikely that the JC story is true, and if it is not, then it is very unlikely that any such individual ever lived.

I would say that since his claims of divinity were rooted in the ability to perform miracles, those miracles are subject to scientific review.
Click to expand...

In Roman Catholic dogma, anyone who is a saint can perform miracles, but only JC is the Son of God.

In Jewish "dogma", many people did, in fact, perform miracles -- notably, Moses. That did not make any of them the Messiah.
 
Josephus is one of the most respected ancient historian, you also have writings from tacitus, and others.

Of coarse tehre is no PROOF of Jesus existing, like there is mathematical PROOF of gravity, but then again there is no PROOF that plato existed, but Jesus' existance is WAY more documented than Plato, and most anciant figures whose existence almost NO ONE disputes are much less documented.

If you're going to deny that Jesus existed based on lack of evidence you ahve to deny most historical figures and most of history.

As far as parallels between Jesus and other myths, almost no historian holds to that nowerdays, and almost all of those so called parallels have been dismissed in the modern historical field.
 
Pinkie said:
In Roman Catholic dogma, anyone who is a saint can perform miracles, but only JC is the Son of God.

In Jewish "dogma", many people did, in fact, perform miracles -- notably, Moses. That did not make any of them the Messiah.
Click to expand...

And all of their claims of supernatural power should be subject to scrutiny. Serious geological studies have gone on, for example, to determine how and when the Red Sea could have dried up or two cities be destroyed by fire. Archaeological studies have looked for the remains of a major Hebrew population living in Egypt for several centuries. Every assertion ought to be tested to determine whether or not it is true.
 
RGacky3 said:
Josephus is one of the most respected ancient historian, you also have writings from tacitus, and others.

Of coarse tehre is no PROOF of Jesus existing, like there is mathematical PROOF of gravity, but then again there is no PROOF that plato existed, but Jesus' existance is WAY more documented than Plato, and most anciant figures whose existence almost NO ONE disputes are much less documented.

If you're going to deny that Jesus existed based on lack of evidence you ahve to deny most historical figures and most of history.

As far as parallels between Jesus and other myths, almost no historian holds to that nowerdays, and almost all of those so called parallels have been dismissed in the modern historical field.
Click to expand...

I think you might be confusing Plato for Socrates. But I would wager that Socrates' existence is much more documented, as a historical figure, than Jesus
 
No I'm thinking both ... And if you wager that you'd be wrong.
 
Paschendale said:
And all of their claims of supernatural power should be subject to scrutiny. Serious geological studies have gone on, for example, to determine how and when the Red Sea could have dried up or two cities be destroyed by fire. Archaeological studies have looked for the remains of a major Hebrew population living in Egypt for several centuries. Every assertion ought to be tested to determine whether or not it is true.
Click to expand...

I think you might be overlooking the fact that historians look for the factual basis for these myths, but they are still approached for what they are: myths.
 
RGacky3 said:
No I'm thinking both ... And if you wager that you'd be wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, we have numerous books that are actually credited to plato. And also a plethora of contemporaries writing about him (one I recall is a remark by Alcibiades mentioning how physically unattractive he was). I am unsure of such an extensive records existing for jesus.
 
Medusa said:
pinkie, yes there is no historical proof that muhammed existed.but qoran consists of very personal verses in relation to him and it means yes he lived..
Click to expand...

Just because someone wrote a detailed story doesn't mean that it was true.

Any half-way decent fiction novel has good character development. That doesn't mean it's true.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I think you might be overlooking the fact that historians look for the factual basis for these myths, but they are still approached for what they are: myths.
Click to expand...

I approach it more from the basis that people do all sorts of bad things, fueled by beliefs in these myths. Maybe the Sunnis and Shiites would be more able to make peace with one another if the religion that fuels them disappeared. Maybe Protestants and Catholics could live together in peace in Ireland if they stopped caring about the differences between their myths. Maybe the west and the middle east could stop fighting over religion and nobody would actually think that there was a spiritual reward for blowing yourself up in order to kill others.

It's not really historians that I'm concerned about. It's the population at large, and the strife that our religious divisions cause us.
 
I'm pretty sure that most scholars agree that Jesus existed. Bart E. Ehrman, who is a New Testament and an agnostic says the following about the existence of Jesus, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Just because someone wrote a detailed story doesn't mean that it was true.

Any half-way decent fiction novel has good character development. That doesn't mean it's true.
Click to expand...

you dont know much more about qoran , hadith and sunnah than me.. especially hundred thousands of religious documents prove me right..this is not fiction,this is religion
and if you read all my posts in this thread ,you will see that i admitted we havent enough historical evidences proving he existed.but according to the qoran ,there was a man called mohammed and lots of specific personal verses were sent just for him..
 
Muddy Creek said:
There is no proof of Jesus outside religious writings which began 70 years after they claim he died.

Oddly enough, Horus was an Egyptian god who was around for about 600 years prior to anything about Christ and his life is the same as they claim the life of Christ.

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God

It would appear as though Paul wanted to get the pagans gone so he could be the favorite with the government.
Click to expand...

Actually, Horus was nothing like Jesus Christ at all. It's just some nonsense disseminated by a lame conspiracy theory video called zeitgeist, which was chock full of errors and outright lies.
 
zstep18 said:
I'm pretty sure that most scholars agree that Jesus existed. Bart E. Ehrman, who is a New Testament and an agnostic says the following about the existence of Jesus, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority fallacy. The best historical evidence we have for Jesus comes from someone who wasn't even born until after his death. That certainly doesn't meet the standard for claiming he "certainly existed". Its especially obnoxious coming from an agnostic, who should be comfortable saying that we don't have the knowledge to obtain a definitive answer. The historical nature of Jesus is unclear today and will remain so barring the discovery of new records or time travel.
 
rathi said:
Appeal to authority fallacy. The best historical evidence we have for Jesus comes from someone who wasn't even born until after his death. That certainly doesn't meet the standard for claiming he "certainly existed". Its especially obnoxious coming from an agnostic, who should be comfortable saying that we don't have the knowledge to obtain a definitive answer. The historical nature of Jesus is unclear today and will remain so barring the discovery of new records or time travel.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy. These are scholars with sufficient expertise about the matter in question. Also, there seems to be strong agreement among scholars in this question that there was in fact a historical Jesus.
 
As was mentioned earlier in this thread, you really can't prove any historical figure has existed, much less an ancient one. So the question is whether it is plausible or not. Most scholars agree that it is indeed plausible.
 
zstep18 said:
I'm pretty sure this is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy. These are scholars with sufficient expertise about the matter in question. Also, there seems to be strong agreement among scholars in this question that there was in fact a historical Jesus.
Click to expand...

One guy saying that his viewpoint is universally accepted among scholars is not the definition of consensus. However, that isn't the point. If a scholar wants to put forth the idea that Jesus was a historical certainty, he has to create an argument supported by evidence just like everyone else. There are no existing historical sources from anyone who alive during the lifetime of Jesus. If you think you can argue around that limitation, be my guest, but you need more than simply saying "some scholar agrees with me".
 
rathi said:
Appeal to authority fallacy. The best historical evidence we have for Jesus comes from someone who wasn't even born until after his death. That certainly doesn't meet the standard for claiming he "certainly existed". Its especially obnoxious coming from an agnostic, who should be comfortable saying that we don't have the knowledge to obtain a definitive answer. The historical nature of Jesus is unclear today and will remain so barring the discovery of new records or time travel.
Click to expand...

If I understood him correctly, the question he was addressing is what scholars believe. It is not appeal to authority to then reference scholars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom