Quote:

 

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.

Quote:

 

And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her. She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped. “Who touched me?” Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.” But Jesus said, “Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.” Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. Then he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”

Quote:

 

When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.”

Steve

Nov 5 2016, 03:08 AM

But doctors can cure illnesses, just doing that is hardly a showing of divine power unless we can be absolutely sure they happened as described.

He didn't do anything that actually lasted. His supposed actions obviously had an impact but then so can a mere book.

You would think the son of God would be more important than us just having to believe everything in a book happened.

Years from now somebody could find the Lord of the Rings trilogy and think it happened even though obviously it did not.


Religion is just an after effect of stories told about Jesus, not something he actually done.


And regardless of him being a God or demi-God surely he could have had more of a lasting work? Being born of the power to create the universe ought to do more than just heal a few mortals and various other things.
The only thing we have that may or may not prove he existed is the Shroud of Turin isn't it?

Such an important and powerful figure and we can't even be sure he was real.

Quote:

 

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

OFG

Nov 5 2016, 06:08 PM

I think what Steve is trying to say is that other important figures left behind legacies--Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Socrates, etc.--and we know for a fact that they existed because of the legacies they left behind. All Jesus left behind was, indirectly, the Bible. We have no outside historical evidence that Jesus was a real person. Of course, a lot of that has to do with how long ago he was said to have lived. I believe that's his general argument.

Quote:

 

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Quote:

 

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

Quote:

 

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

lazerbem

Nov 5 2016, 10:52 PM

we have more contemporary evidence for Jesus than we do for the likes of Hannibal and Alexander the Great.

Quote:

 

I know next to nothing about Hannibal, but there's no doubt as to whether Alexander the Great lived, or who he was exactly. Coins that bear his personage, numerous cities that were named after him and one after his horse, one Alexandria being the recorded place of his burial, and how his tomb was a known place of pilgrimage, visited even by Roman emperors, up to the 4th century CE where it disappears without a trace. And, of course, a number of valuable writings that aren't so easy to point to as the innumerable Josephus and Tacitus.

Quote:

 

I think that might be a bit of Christian propaganda, and I'm willing to say it's probably the same in regards to Jesus vs Hannibal, too, though I doubt Hannibal's historical basis compares to Alexander's.

Quote:

 

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Quote:

 

Tacitus comes almost a Century after Christ, and is as much hearsay as the Gospels themselves. He knows certainly of the Christian movement, and what they say of him and what is said of them

Quote:

 

My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.

Quote:

 

Nor did Josephus, or even Jesus' most valuable advocate, Saul, ever meet him. James himself only ever appearing in canon after Christ's execution, with no clear relation between the two.

Quote:

 

Jesus very likely did exist, but there's no definitive proof of this

Quote:

 

It is then absolutely fascinating that he should be so well known above people we know far more certainly their contributions and historicity. Jesus' and Jesus more likely being almost entirely a product of Paul's vision of a messiah than anyone else, from whom we even gets his Greek name.

lazerbem

 

Propaganda being propagated by Muslims(Reza Aslan) and agnostics(Bart Ehrman)? Why would the Christians keep around a mention by Tacitus that is so scathing towards Jesus? The Josephus one is clearly edited, but there is a thing called the Agapian text which is a different and older translation which fits much better.

Quote:

 

He's a Roman senator, he could access the records to see if it checks out. Not to mention that again, he could easily discredit them further by just saying that they're worshipping someone who never existed.

Quote:

 

Hell, Pontius Pilate is a far more important figure, being a Roman governor of a province, and yet he only has three bits of evidence saying he's real(Tacitus, Josephus, and the Pilate stone). There's no definitive proof for many people in this era existing, but it's applying unfair standards to Jesus to say he didn't when many other far more important people have about as much evidence in their lifetime.

Quote:

 

it's far simpler and less convoluted to say that some point, an apocalyptic preacher existed in the Roman province, preached a bit, and was then crucified.

Quote:

 

I was referring to you saying that there is more contemporary evidence for Jesus than Alexander. The coins being contemporary and irrefutable, and having more evidence in general in favour of him. It seems to me like a propaganda like "fact" one might throw in, because it's almost plausible, yet completely wrong.

Quote:

 

Tacitus' reason to believe Jesus existed is no more valuable than our own - thanks to the likes of Tacitus himself, in our case. Maybe he had definitive proof at the time, but he hasn't provided or mentioned it, and what he says isn't definitive itself. Nothing suggests he knows any better than we do now only a century after then, and that was the the point I was making of hearsay. It is hearsay that we believe Jesus existed at all, with nothing definitive on the matter.

Quote:

 

It appeared like you were trying to say Jesus' historicity is more concrete than that of Alexanders' due to contemporary writings, and given how erroneous this is I figured it to be just as likely that your other named comparison wasn't right. Pilate's stone is itself far more definitive proof than anything Jesus has.

Quote:

 

The stone itself even showing that Tacitus wasn't without error, and may have indeed bought in to and used the Christians own account of their history.

Quote:

 

Various theories have been put forward to explain why Tacitus should use the term "procurator" when the archaeological evidence indicates that Pilate was a prefect. Jerry Vardaman theorizes that Pilate's title was changed during his stay in Judea and that the Pilate Stone dates from the early years of his administration. Baruch Lifs***z postulates that the inscription would originally have mentioned the title of "procurator" along with "prefect". L.A. Yelnitsky argues that the use of "procurator" in Annals 15.44.3 is a Christian interpolation. S.G.F. Brandon suggests that there is no real difference between the two ranks. John Dominic Crossan states that Tacitus "retrojected" the title procurator which was in use at the time of Claudius back onto Pilate who was called prefect in his own time. Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans as well as Van Voorst state that Tacitus apparently used the title procurator because it was more common at the time of his writing and that this variation in the use of the title should not be taken as evidence to doubt the correctness of the information Tacitus provides. Warren Carter states that, as the term "prefect" has a military connotation, while "procurator" is civilian, the use of either term may be appropriate for governors who have a range of military, administrative and fiscal responsibilities

Quote:

 

Oh, and I want to point out that I'm quite sympathetic to Jesus as a historical entity, and would personally like to afford him a fair bit of his own character, only pointing out that it's likely it was almost entirely Saul's vision of a messiah, not definitely the case. Still, likely.

Mitas

Nov 5 2016, 06:35 PM

Jesus' entire purpose as a prophet was to bring to us the word and teachings of God. You can't say that his monumental impact on the world doesn't count. Even if human interpretation played a big role in the evolution of Christianity and it's impact on our world, Jesus was still the source of all that. Plus, it's not like he was just some guy who people decided to pain as a prophet, he existed to fill that role. Also, if Christian lore is to be treated as fact, which it should be if we're debating this as if he did exist, doesn't dying for the sins of an entire race of people count as a major lasting impact on the world?

Quote:

 

Jesus existed long before and it'd certainly be harder to prove he existed, naturally but if he was truly divine why don't we have irrefutable proof? Anything other worldly that just any man couldn't achieve or make.