Evidence of Jesus?

[Nam]

Question:

Is there any empirical[1] evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed?

I am not asking for Historical evidence, or for people to use the Bible as evidence[2], I am looking for empirical evidence.

If an argument is presented as to how, say, Plato existed or not, I feel that's going off-topic. This isn't about Plato but Jesus.

Some atheists state that they believe Jesus existed; I used to be one of them. I find that to be a "latch" of sorts. Meaning: those of us who are former Christians still hold on to certain things of our former beliefs, even if we actually don't believe in them anymore.

For such a great man[3] to have existed there should be some sort of empirical evidence, shouldn't there?

-Nam

1.	Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
2.	especially since many of the books were written by the same person, and for the fact it was written after his lifetime.
3.	topically speaking, of course.

[HAL]

Question:

Is there any empirical[1] evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed?

1.	Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

No.

[Nick]

No (2)

[JeffPT]

Not that I'm aware of. 

[mrbiscoop]

 Is there?

[Mr. Blackwell]

So what if there isn't. How could it ever be proved that he didn't exist?

[Nick]

So what if there isn't. How could it ever be proved that he didn't exist?

No historical evidence.

[Nam]

So what if there isn't. How could it ever be proved that he didn't exist?

That's like saying, "How could it be proven Wolverine[1] didn't/doesn't exist.".

-Nam

1.	just read about the new Wolverine fil coming out next year, why I am using him as the example.

[lomolo]

No evidence at all? How do Christians respond to that claim?

[bertatberts]

No evidence at all? How do Christians respond to that claim?

By claiming there is evidence, and anybody claiming there isn't is denying what is there.

Martin Luther King Jr said it best, "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." but I don't think he was referring to Christians.

[Brakeman]

That's like saying, "How could it be proven Wolverine[1] didn't/doesn't exist.".

-Nam

1.	just read about the new Wolverine fil coming out next year, why I am using him as the example.

There may have been a man with long fingernails that lead an interesting life that was the basis for the story of wolverine.

[rev45]

Shroud of Turin.  The dozen or so foreskins of Jesus.  The multiple burial sites of Jesus including one in Japan.  See plenty. 

[stuffin]

Empirical? Did you discover a new word and are integrating it into your vocabulary? (JK)

Does silhouettes of him on toast and other mediums count?

[naemhni]

Is there any empirical evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed?

No, there is no archaeological evidence or anything else of that sort, if that's what you mean.  There is almost no mention of him by any historians or chroniclers of the period, either, and the few that do exist are largely of dubious provenance.  That being said, modern-day historians and bible scholars are generally agreed that there most likely was an itinerant preacher named Jesus who was crucified as a criminal -- but not on anything else.

For such a great man to have existed there should be some sort of empirical evidence, shouldn't there?

One would certainly think so.  In my opinion, the fact that there's even any room for debate on the matter at all, let alone as much room for debate as there is, is itself an argument against the historicity of the gospels, considering the claims that they make.

[Nam]

The reason why I used Plato as an example of what not to use is because unlike Jesus where nothing was written by him (which makes me believe he was illiterate) the works attributed to Plato are by him, and written during his time. Excluding, of course, those attributed to Plato yet may have actually been written by Socrates; though it is believed he wrote nothing.[1]

-Nam

1.	yes, I realize the irony in that.

[Mr. Blackwell]

It is a logical fallacy to argue that a person didn't exist because there is no "empirical" or "historical" evidence which meets your exacting standards.

If Jesus did exist and If he was a traveling preacher, chances are he was a dime a dozen. Who is gonna write about some preacher who didn't belong to the prevailing religious order and doesn't even have a Church?

If he was considered a rebel...why would anyone in charge of keeping records glorify his deeds?

He may be popular and influential now, thanks to Peter, but it is a mistake to assume that he was popular during his time.

If he existed.

As an after thought, how do we know Peter existed?



 

[Backspace]

If Jesus did exist and If he was a traveling preacher, chances are he was a dime a dozen. Who is gonna write about some preacher who didn't belong to the prevailing religious order and doesn't even have a Church?

I seem to remember a story or two about walking on water, feeding thousands with a few rolls and a fish, curing diseases through touch, and upon death, the midday sky going dark, the unshakable earth shaking, and zombies rising from the grave.

Newsworthy?  Naahh - that sort of thing happened every day.

[mrbiscoop]

Bart Ehrman's last book tackles this question.

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350524599&sr=1-1&keywords=bart+ehrman

[Mr. Blackwell]

I seem to remember a story or two about walking on water, feeding thousands with a few rolls and a fish, curing diseases through touch, and upon death, the midday sky going dark, the unshakable earth shaking, and zombies rising from the grave.

Newsworthy?  Naahh - that sort of thing happened every day.

Ever heard of the word embellish?

Edit

Of coarse the embellishment would come from those few who heard him and liked what he had to say. Not from the establishment who thought he was a miscreant.

[Nam]

Mr. Blackwell,

According to the Bible[1], the Romans punished him for breaking the law not because they feared or disliked him. It's even referenced as to how (I forget his name, Pontias Pilate, I think? I don't know.) gave the option to the Jews for him not to be crucified, and either they didn't speak up, or they just told them to do it. The only people that seemed to hate Jesus, at the time, were the Jews. Which is why for 2,000 years the stigma of "Jews killed Christ" has been around and not "The Romans killed Christ". So, the only one's, I feel, who would destroy any record of Jesus would be the Jews. So, why would such a person who could heal people, feed thousands, turn water into wine, rise from the dead, etc., not be mentioned by not only the Romans (even if insignificantly) but anyone else not Jewish?[2]

Doesn't make sense.

He wasn't just a great man after his death, not according to the NT, but during his time: yet there is nothing written about him during his time.

-Nam

1.	perhaps more implied
2.	I may be remembering the whole story wrong, please correct me if I did.

[Nam]

mrbiscoop,

That's "Historical", I am asking for "emperical".

-Nam

[JeffPT]

According to the Bible[1], the Romans punished him for breaking the law not because they feared or disliked him. It's even referenced as to how (I forget his name, Pontias Pilate, I think? I don't know.) gave the option to the Jews for him not to be crucified, and either they didn't speak up, or they just told them to do it.

1.	perhaps more implied

If I remember, its different according to which gospel account you read. 

From what I remember, most historical accounts show Pilate was not a wishy-washy, spineless wimp.  He was a brutal ass-hole of the first degree.  He probably would have had no problem skewering Jesus on a pike.  Given that, I doubt he would have left the decision up to someone else. 

The only people that seemed to hate Jesus, at the time, were the Jews.

According to the stories, I think the Romans believed that Jesus was a trouble-maker, and that he had the potential to start riots against the Roman rule. 

Which is why for 2,000 years the stigma of "Jews killed Christ" has been around and not "The Romans killed Christ".

Again, I think it depends which gospel you read.  If I remember, (and don't quote me on this) but it was the gospel of Matthew that made it seem like the Jews were at fault more than in any other gospel.  Can anyone confirm that for me? 

So, the only one's, I feel, who would destroy any record of Jesus would be the Jews.

I really think that the religion was so small and unimportant at the start, that the Jews didn't care about the whole Jesus thing.  Probably right up until it became too big to handle, and by then, Jesus (if he existed) was long gone, and the Jews could not give solid evidence or testimony that he never existed. 

So, why would such a person who could heal people, feed thousands, turn water into wine, rise from the dead, etc., not be mentioned by not only the Romans (even if insignificantly) but anyone else not Jewish?[2]

2.	I may be remembering the whole story wrong, please correct me if I did.

My thought is that he didn't exist (at least not in the divine form that can perform miracles).  That would explain why the Romans never recorded those things.  Because he never did them. 

It's late and I'm tired.  If there are errors in what I wrote, forgive me. 

[Nam]

^see, the problem with those accounts is that we have to take the word of the individual book in the Bible that these things are true, or not. One book speaks harshly against the Jews another speaks harshly against Pilate. Too much contradiction.

Then the question becomes not if there were any empirical evidence of Jesus but that in fact any of these events actually occured?

-Nam

[anthony_retford]

Trying to find evidence of a Jesus is like trying to find evidence of the exodus from Egypt - it just doesn't exist. That is the fault of the writers of the Bible, writing grandiose events when nothing happened. I think they got carried away. And, remember, who needed evidence then anyway?

[Mr. Blackwell]

I can't find any evidence of my family tree past great grandparents. Aperently my lineage just sprang up out of nowhere. Even though there is rumor that a great great grandfather operated a general store in the mountains of North Carolina.

But I guess that's just hearsay[1].

1.

heresey?

[Nick]

Mormons can probably help you.  They have records going back a long way on lots of us.  They have to baptize all those people you know.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Iiiiii don't know if I trust them entirely.

[Nam]

You can trust them to Baptise you after you die....if you're white.

-Nam

[JeffPT]

I can't find any evidence of my family tree past great grandparents. Aperently my lineage just sprang up out of nowhere. Even though there is rumor that a great great grandfather operated a general store in the mountains of North Carolina.

But I guess that's just hearsay[1].

1.

heresey?

My grandmother worked on ours for many years.  She has our family tree traced all the way back to when we were fish.  BTW, everyone on this site is a distant relative of mine.