Let me restate. Most historians believe that the first, longer quote wrt Jesus in Tacitus histories is a forgery. Historians are not quite as sure about the second, shorter quote. Assuming that the Tacitus quotes are not forgeries, there is no debating that Tacitus was writing fifty years after the fact with second hand knowledge (at best). Here is a supporting link which has a discussion about both Tacitus and Josephus (warning to all, don't chase this unless you are willing to have your "faith tested"): http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/postscpt.htm
Again whether the records do or don't prove the existence isn't really relevant. It appears there is evidence to argue both ways. But someone did come up with the concepts and spiritual philosophy attributed to Jesus. What that person's name was isn't really important, and whoever came up with that is the real Jesus. The fact those concepts exist prove that Jesus existed. That sounds kind of like Descartes and while in a way it's the same, it isn't identical.
franchiseblade, I rarely wade into these theological debates, but most of those concepts pre-date Christianity and have their origins in Essenic and other Gnostic texts. Some concepts even go back as far as Zorastrian teachings.
Much of the plagues and the parting of the "sea of reeds" has been attributed to a volcanic eruption. Read this: http://templarchronicle.homestead.com/santoriniplagues.html http://www.kemble.org.uk/moses.html
Technically, it doesn't really matter if he "physically" existed or not. With faith, all that matters is the "spiritual" resurrection. If you "believe" it, he did.
Many of the ideas or myth like parts come almost directly from Zorastrian teachings, and Gnostics at the time were another sect, of Christ believing jews. There are also things that seem very bhuda like in the teachings, including almost the whole book of Ecclesiastes But the concepts that are unique is the idea of loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, a lot of the stuff from sermon on the mount. If someone steals something from you give him everything etc. Those are the ideas that set it apart.
Actually, this concept has been misinterpreted. I've read that the idea of "turning you cheek" was actually considered a great insult to the would-be attacker. I looked for a link but couldn't find one. Maybe some of the more theologically-savy posters can find what I'm talking about. As for the evidence, all the guys proved is that certain astronomical events took place during those years. It's perfectly possible that the authors of the bible simply included those phenomena for dramatic effect.
Turning the other cheek, however, fits in with rest of the spirit of the sermon on the mount, and and is a direct reply of what to do if you are hit on the cheek. I would be interested to see the information about it being an insult.
There may be proof of his brother... Jesus' Brother's "Bone Box" Closer to Being Authenticated Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News April 18, 2003 Questions raised about the authenticity of a 2,000-year-old ossuary thought to have once held the bones of James, the brother of Jesus, may be a step closer to resolution. The box bears the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It sparked a spate of controversy among biblical scholars and archaeologists when it was first reported in the November/December 2002 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review [see our October 21 story Burial Box May Be That of Jesus's Brother, Expert Says]. The authenticity of the ossuary itself was generally accepted, but many scholars questioned whether all or part of the inscription was a forgery. "The artifact has since undergone further study at the Royal Ontario Museum, and passed all tests with flying colors," says Ben Witherington, a New Testament professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and co-author of The Brother of Jesus. The book, published March 18, describes the find itself, and what it tells us about biblical times and the origins of Christianity. The ossuary is about 20 inches long, 10 inches wide, and 12 inches high. The image on top shows the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." "The James ossuary is testimony to the fact that the people of the time had a strong belief in the resurrection of Jesus," said Witherington. "In antiquity, crucifixion was the most humiliating and dishonorable way to die, and people believed that how you died was a reflection on your character. "If Jesus's life had simply ended in crucifixion, no one in their right mind would include his name—in a place of honor—on the box." Following the Trail of the Bone Box For a 90-year period, from 20 B.C. to A.D. 70, the Jewish burial custom was to place the body in a cave for a year or so and then retrieve the bones and put them in a bone box—ossuary—that could then be placed in a niche in the family tomb. Several hundred such boxes from that era have been found, 215 of which have inscriptions. Only two boxes mention a brother. "So far, with all the inscriptions we have, only one other has mentioned a brother," said Andre Lemaire, a paleographer at the Sorbonne University in Paris (École Pratique des Hautes Études). "It suggests the brother was also prominent, an important person." Lemaire discovered the ossuary while examining the collection of Oded Golan, an engineer in Tel Aviv with a passion for relics from biblical times. Golan purchased the artifact from a Jerusalem-based dealer in the 1970s. The artifact's lack of provenance raised doubts among some scholars. To antiquities specialists, knowing where something was originally found provides a wealth of clues that can be used to authenticate an object. "The dealer who sold it was a man of questionable reputation who had a history of inappropriate dealings with various museums and government agencies," said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist at Duke University. Meyers doesn't question whether the box is genuine and dates back to the first century. The box was originally tested in Israel by scientists at the Geological Survey Group, who judged it to be about 2,000 years old. But the inscription divides the believers and the non-believers. "I'm more convinced than ever that the artifact has been tampered with, and that the part of the inscription that reads 'brother of Jesus' is a forgery inserted at a later date," Meyers said. Witherington argues that the testing revealed a great deal about the provenance of the box. "It is made of Jerusalem limestone from Mount Scopus, and the dirt encrusted in the inner walls comes quite specifically from a region in Jerusalem, consistent with the claim that this box came from Silwan, which is what the antiquities dealer originally told Oded Golan," he said. Golan, he added, isn't sure which dealer sold him the box 30 years ago. Two-Hand Theory The doubts result from the fact that half of the inscription was cleaned at some point in time. The break comes at the word "brother," and the "brother of Jesus" part of the inscription also looks to be written in a slightly more cursive form than the beginning of the inscription. This gave rise to the idea that the inscription was carved by two different people. "A non-professional lay person in Israel saw a photograph of the box and started to circulate her interpretation that it was a two-hand job," said Ed Keall, director of the Near Eastern and Ancient Civilization department of the Royal Ontario Museum. The doubts, he said, spread like a contagious disease when reports of the find were first published. "We looked over the box very carefully, and subjected it to analytical testing using a light polarizing microscope, ultraviolet light, a microscope with 60 times the magnification, and electron microscopy," said Keall. "I'm very comfortable saying that the ossuary itself and the inscription are totally genuine and everything we found was consistent with considerable age. It's obvious someone had scrubbed the James part of the inscription," said Keall. "But it's like when you brush your teeth, no matter how hard you try to do a good job, there are always bits and pieces left. And that's true with the inscription; there are still bits and pieces left in the nooks and crannies, and they are consistent with the rest of the encrustation." A conference of biblical scholars that took place in December at the Royal Ontario Museum allowed a large number of antiquities professionals to look at the box, and many were convinced of its authenticity, he said. But not all. The wear and weathering on the two long sides of the box are significantly different, complicating the picture. The more weathered side has two rosettes carved into it, and some red paint. The side with the inscription is less weathered. Meyers argues that this is evidence that the inscription was carved at a later date. There's a reasonable explanation for that, says Witherington. "The majority of the work of building the temple in Jerusalem was finished by the time Jesus was a young child," he said. "So the stone masons moved into carving ossuaries. They didn't wait until someone died to carve a one-person adult box, which is what this is. They carved a number of them and then left them out in the yard, exposed to the elements, which in Jerusalem can be quite harsh. James was suddenly martyred in A.D. 62, and they couldn't afford an expensive one, so they bought one that had already been carved, had it inscribed, and placed it in a place protected from the elements." Keall has an alternate explanation for the differences in weathering. "I think the rosettes are on the front of the box, and the inscription on the back," he said. "When the box was placed in its niche in the cave it's conceivable that the front was subjected to more fluctuating conditions." There will always be doubters. "They've applied every possible test to it to determine its character and authenticity, but there will always be a cloud over it and there will always be those who doubt because it wasn't recovered in a legitimate archaeological dig," said P. Kyle McCarter, a paleographer at Johns Hopkins University. "But this is not an unusual situation. We get this a lot."
There is a song called "Creed" by Rich Mullins that explains my beliefs on this subject. I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Maker of Earth And in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, our Lord He was conceived by the Holy Spirit Born of the virgin Mary Suffered under Pontius Pilate He was crucified and dead and buried And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am I did not make it, no it is making me It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man I believe that He who suffered was crucified, buried, and dead He descended into hell and on the third day, rose again He ascended into Heaven where He sits at God's mighty right hand I believe that He's returning To judge the quick and the dead of the sons of men And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am I did not make it, no it is making me It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man I believe it, I believe it I believe it I believe it, I believe it I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Maker of Earth And in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, our Lord I believe in the Holy Spirit One Holy Church The communion of Saints The forgiveness of sin I believe in the resurrection I believe in a life that never ends And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am I did not make it, no it is making me I did not make it, no it is making me I said I did not make it, no it is making me It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man
Weird family. Name one kid Jesus, and then you name the next one Bone Box. Must have been due to some sort of mid-life crisis or something.
What historical evidence is there that YOU exist? I mean it like this. . . Historical Evidence is not a big deal because nine times out of ten it will only support folx famous in there life times. If you not famous . .. but become famous afterdeath . . .. the history will be spotty ESP If you had not made anything tangible [i.e. . / / who is really shakespeare] Rocket River
Actually, according to the title, they named him "Bone Box." The "" make the parents even more cruel. I am pretty sure that "Bone Box" is not the only thing that his been inscribed with "brother of Jesus" since many early Christians saw themselves as such. And, as the last article mentioned: there will always be those who doubt because it wasn't recovered in a legitimate archaeological dig," said P. Kyle McCarter, a paleographer at Johns Hopkins University. "But this is not an unusual situation. We get this a lot." The box is unconvincing to those who don't believe and convincing to those who do...it will ultimately prove nothing either way (my guess).
Many of the ideas or myth like parts come almost directly from Zorastrian teachings, and Gnostics at the time were another sect, of Christ believing jews. There are also things that seem very bhuda like in the teachings, including almost the whole book of Ecclesiastes. As an aside, it is really interesting to read about the religions that influenced Christianity. The Mediterranean world circa Christ was a small world. Many of the religions cross pollinated each other. Here is a good article on Mithraism, which has roots into Zoroastrianism. Christianity replace Mithraism as Rome's universal religion. In doing so, Christianity adopted many thingsfrom Mitrhaism like: December 25 as the birth (rebirth) of Mithra, Vatican hill, Mithra had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal, Mithra sacrificed himself to redeem mankind, conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day, etc. Here is an article which discusses the Q Gospel which contians many of the Wisdom sayings later attributed to Christ by the Gospels Matthew and Luke. Q was not a narrative Gospel, but an organized collection of sayings which included moral teachings, prophetic admonitions and controversy stories, plus a few miracles and other anecdotes. It was the product of a Jewish (or Jewish imitating) sectarian movement located in Galilee which preached a coming Kingdom of God. ... A close similarity has been noted between these maxims and those of the Greek philosophical school known as Cynicism, a counterculture movement of the time spread by wandering Cynic preachers. For the interested, there are many sites to checkout which include: The Jesus Puzzle The Jesus Mysteries The Christ Conspiracy The Jesus Seminar The Truth About Jesus A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Early Christian Writings Historical Jesus Theories The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors Jesus Never Existed American Atheists
As someone who spent a great deal of time in the study of history, I always find it funny people want to treat evidence in the field like a science. What does it mean that "there is no evidence" that Jesus existed. Certainly there is evidence -- there are four Gospels that deal with the subject in some detail and a number of other texts that refer to him. Perhaps you feel they are partisan, a deliberate deceit, or otherwise unreliable evidence. But, that doesn't really impact their status as evidence. To say "there is no evidence" is flat-out factually untrue. As for the reliability of the evidence in answering the question of whether Jesus (the man at least) existed, I think the Bible even all by itself is more than sufficient as evidence in the field of History. This isn't a big or hard question to answer, really. I find the Bible is sufficient for me because there is a robustness to it. It isn't just a single and simple claim. There are multiple writers writing on the same subject with some level of agreement among them. There is a cohesiveness to the story of his life and to the principles of his teachings. Could a good fiction writer do the same and completely make it up? I think so. But could a dozen writers do it with little cooperation with one another? I doubt it. Also, where would such a drive come from? Why would this church form to create this document without Jesus at the center of it? I think a good argument can be made that Jesus is not the son of God. But to deny even his existence as a man is shaky and, frankly, seems desperate -- like you are so afraid of the Christian camp that you don't even want to afford them a toe-hold of legitimacy. It's ridiculous really. And not only that but a betrayal of one's own intellectual integrity. Can't you argue down Christianity in a fair fight?
The link below discounts the effects of the mystery religions' impact on Christianity. To read Christianity as anything more than an extension of Judaism seems a bit suspect to me. Much of what Christ did fulfilled Old Testament prophecy directly. Whether or not you believe he actually did that or not is a whole other subject. I clipped the part about Mithra in particular because it was brought up here...but if you have a chance, click on the link and read some more. There are more than a few mystery religions that people have tried to say were part of the legend of Christ. http://www.equip.org/free/DB109.htm Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has survived Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light) and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic forces.8 The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it’s all wrong! The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament. Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.
