The real face of Jesus

[Doc Savage Fan]

You mean to that Yeshua was a real person that actually lived on this planet at some point in time?

I hope you're kidding...please tell me you're kidding.

 

[HumblePie]

I hope you're kidding...please tell me you're kidding.

Actually, there is quite a bit of debate on this subject even from theologians from a theological perspective. There isn't really any physical evidence that points to Yeshua being real and not a fictional character. All the accounts are third hand. No writings about him were started until about 120 years after his supposed death.

I'm not saying he didn't exist. Just that there is debate about it. If something like a real Shroud of Turin could be found, then the debate would be over. Hence why all this "testing" on religious objects that keep being "found" recently and discredited. There has yet to be found any empirical, hard, scientific evidence of his existence to be found which is why there is a debate. You claim you study theology, but have never heard of this debate?

 

[CycloWizard]

Actually, there is quite a bit of debate on this subject even from theologians from a theological perspective. There isn't really any physical evidence that points to Yeshua being real and not a fictional character. All the accounts are third hand. No writings about him were started until about 120 years after his supposed death.

I'm not saying he didn't exist. Just that there is debate about it. If something like a real Shroud of Turin could be found, then the debate would be over. Hence why all this "testing" on religious objects that keep being "found" recently and discredited. You claim you study theology, but have never heard of this debate?

Plenty of historical documents covering various facets of his life and, especially, death exist from the Roman literature.

 

[HumblePie]

Plenty of historical documents covering various facets of his life and, especially, death exist from the Roman literature.

Nope, no historical document exists. Again, third hand accounts written years after he supposedly exists. Just google "Did Jesus Exist" for me and read for yourself why the lack of hard evidence has raised this question and debate for a long time.

 

[Munky]

Umm... cool story, but the shroud of turin wasn't "real"

 

[AstroManLuca]

What is this? I saw that picture years ago and back then, the associated caption said it was simply a reconstruction of a typical Jewish man from ancient Palestine and that there was no physical evidence of Jesus himself on which to base any more accurate reconstruction.

Here, see for yourself. Popular Mechanics article from December 2002:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1

Why is this being talked about as if it's new? That image is over 7 years old.

 

[CycloWizard]

Nope, no historical document exists. Again, third hand accounts written years after he supposedly exists. Just google "Did Jesus Exist" for me and read for yourself why the lack of hard evidence has raised this question and debate for a long time.

Because you and others don't understand how the Roman Empire operated. Just read, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ," by Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer from 1986 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, volume 255, pages 1455-1463. Since I know you won't, I'll quote a bit from the introduction, omitting the citations:

The source material concerning Christ's death comprises a body of literature and not a physical body or its skeletal remains. Accordingly, the credibility of any discussion of Jesus' death will be determined primarily by the credibility of one's sources. For this review, teh source material includes the writings of ancient Christian and non-Christian authors, the writings of modern authors, and the Shroud of Turin.* Using the legal-historical method of scientific investigation, scholars have established the reliability and accuracy of the ancient manuscripts.

The most extensive and detailed description of the life and death of Jesus are to be found in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The other 23 books of the New Testament support but do not expand on the details recorded in the gospels. Contemporary Christian, Jewish, and Roman authors provide additional insight concerning the first-century Jewish and Roman legal systems and the details of scourging and crucifixion. Seneca, Livy, Plutarch, and others refer to crucifixion practices in tehir works. Specifically, Jesus (or his crucifixion) is mentioned by Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius, by non-Roman historians Thallus and Phlegon, by the satirist Lucian of Samosata, by the Jewish Talmud, and by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, although the authenticity of portions of teh latter is problematic.

*long paragraph on the Shroud and other evidence regarding practices of crucifixion*

When taken in concert certain facts - the extensive and early testimony of both Christian proponents and opponents, and their universal acceptance of Jesus as a true historical figure; the ethic of the gospel writers, and the shortness of the time interval between the events and the extant manuscripts; and the confirmation of hte gospel accounts by historians and archaeological findings - ensure a reliable testimony from which a modern medical interpretation of Jesus' death may be made.

The Shroud of Turin is used to render medical statements regarding the act of crucifixion rather than as an indicator of Jesus' existence. I can type it out if it's really necessary, but it doesn't have any bearing on the 40 references used in the article supporting the historical Jesus' existence.

 

[HumblePie]

Cyclo, the who point to that excerpt was that because there is a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence he is willing conclude he may have existed. That doesn't prove that he did beyond a reasonable doubt. Without physical hard evidence, it's still just conjecture. Also, as you pointed out at least you are able to recognize that the shroud of turbin isn't the actual burial shroud for jesus but a item used to demonstrate how it used to be done. At least if you are willing to not look at the uniformity of the "blood stains" and other items on the turbin which were the original evidence to give doubt about the veracity of the claim that the shroud was what was used to cover Yeshua.

While you may intellectually acknowledge that, many as shown here on these forums, do not. Many deny and cling to claims such as contamination, error margin, or other ideas of conspiracy.

Also, the Bible can not be considered a historical document. It is a collection of second and third hand stories. It is written in prose and not done in a historical way. There are plenty of historical documents from that time frame which show how historical events and people are documented. None of those show a Yeshua of Nazerath.

Again, not to say that he didn't exist, or that some empirical evidence out there exists that will end the debate once and for all. However, one has to wonder for a figure so important that he spawned a religion, there might be a bit more evidence about his existence than some 3 hand writings hundreds of years after his death.

 

[CycloWizard]

Cyclo, the who point to that excerpt was that because there is a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence he is willing conclude he may have existed. That doesn't prove that he did beyond a reasonable doubt. Without physical hard evidence, it's still just conjecture.

Roman historians who wrote about Jesus lived (some of those cited in the JAMA article):
Pliny the Younger: 61-112 AD
Cornelius Tacitus - 56-117 AD
Suetonius - 69-130 AD (approximate)
Thallus - wrote in mid-1st century (exact dates unclear)

Are you prepared to attempt a refutation of the process of the legal-historical method of scientific investigation? If not, then I suggest you stick to the facts as they have been established by historians rather than putting your opinion out there as fact.

 

[HumblePie]

Roman historians who wrote about Jesus lived (some of those cited in the JAMA article):
Pliny the Younger: 61-112 AD
Cornelius Tacitus - 56-117 AD
Suetonius - 69-130 AD (approximate)
Thallus - wrote in mid-1st century (exact dates unclear)

Are you prepared to attempt a refutation of the process of the legal-historical method of scientific investigation? If not, then I suggest you stick to the facts as they have been established by historians rather than putting your opinion out there as fact.

Sure let's start with the top of that list shall we? actually, they all are outlined in this article. Most of which is the fact that NONE of those men met him. They are all third hand accounts with no sources of creditable informants given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Pliny_the_Younger

On Plinly

Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the first century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence: "Only the most robust credulity could reckon this assertion as admissible evidence for the historicity of Jesus"

On Tacitus

"it is inconceivable that there were any records of Jesus for Tacitus to consult in Rome (for many reasons, not the least of which being that Rome's capitol had burned to the ground more than once in the interim), and even less conceivable that he would have dug through them even if they existed … It would simply be too easy to just ask a Christian—or a colleague who had done so … there can be no doubt that what Pliny discovered from Christians he had interrogated was passed on to Tacitus."[69]

Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".

The other accounts are even less creditable as outlined in the wiki above.

Suffice it to say, there is no historical first hand document about Yeshua of Nazareth. None what so ever. There is no physical proof either. Hence the debate.

You wish to bring more? feel free.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually, there is quite a bit of debate on this subject even from theologians from a theological perspective. There isn't really any physical evidence that points to Yeshua being real and not a fictional character. All the accounts are third hand. No writings about him were started until about 120 years after his supposed death.

I'm not saying he didn't exist. Just that there is debate about it. If something like a real Shroud of Turin could be found, then the debate would be over. Hence why all this "testing" on religious objects that keep being "found" recently and discredited. There has yet to be found any empirical, hard, scientific evidence of his existence to be found which is why there is a debate. You claim you study theology, but have never heard of this debate?

Of course I know of this debate...this one is a 'no brainer' and I'm surprised that you haven't figured this one out yet during your many years of study. Mark was written about 30 years after the crucifixion....not 120 years. Hebrews was likely written earlier than Mark. Peter directly gave Mark his first hand account...which is technically a second hand account but in no way was a third hand account as you state. Most scholars believe Mark was at Gethsemane and was likely a first hand witness to many of the events of the time.

There are also several other first hand accounts...and you say you've studied this? Tell me...what exactly did you study? This is pretty fundamental knowledge. And btw, your repeated insinuation that I'm lying is getting a little old...and becoming increasingly ironic with each of your posts.

 

[HumblePie]

Of course I know of this debate...this one is a 'no brainer' and I'm surprised that you haven't figured this one out yet during your many years of study. Mark was written about 30 years after the crucifixion....not 120 years. Hebrews was likely written earlier than Mark. Peter directly gave Mark his first hand account...which is technically a second hand account but in no way was a third hand account as you state. Most scholars believe Mark was at Gethsemane and was likely a first hand witness to many of the events of the time.

There are also several other first hand accounts...and you say you've studied this? Tell me...what exactly did you study? This is pretty fundamental knowledge. And btw, your repeated insinuation that I'm lying is getting a little old...and becoming increasingly ironic with each of your posts.

ah... the actual papyrus, perhaps. When it was written into a "bible" that is a big negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Mark and Peter writing are about as close to first hand accounts that could be attributed. However, there are no surviving originals last time I checked from either of their hand writings. So, the information entered is second hand, not first.

The Gospel of Mark was composed by an anonymous author,[2] traditionally believed to be Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a cousin of Barnabas.[9] There is external evidence that the Gospel of Mark may have been based on the preaching of disciple of Peter. However, this is an area of ongoing debate.[1][10] (See also the Augustinian hypothesis and Augustine of Hippo)

However, I'll give you one snippet of physical and historical info that may point to the historical reference of Yeshua as a man. That was possibly finding where John the Baptist was entombed. There was a big nice informational show done on I think the Discovery channel called Ancient Discoveries. Either way, in the tomb was found some original manuscripts. Last I check, they were looking to try and prove conclusively one way or another if it is John the Baptist's tomb. If it is, then there may be enough supporting evidence to the existence of Yeshua.

 

[Sclamoz]

Roman historians who wrote about Jesus lived (some of those cited in the JAMA article):
Pliny the Younger: 61-112 AD
Cornelius Tacitus - 56-117 AD
Suetonius - 69-130 AD (approximate)
Thallus - wrote in mid-1st century (exact dates unclear)

Are you prepared to attempt a refutation of the process of the legal-historical method of scientific investigation? If not, then I suggest you stick to the facts as they have been established by historians rather than putting your opinion out there as fact.

Wouldn't all those people have lived AFTER jesus died?

 

[CycloWizard]

Sure let's start with the top of that list shall we? actually, they all are outlined in this article. Most of which is the fact that NONE of those men met him. They are all third hand accounts with no sources of creditable informants given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Pliny_the_Younger

On Plinly


On Tacitus



The other accounts are even less creditable as outlined in the wiki above.

Suffice it to say, there is no historical first hand document about Yeshua of Nazareth. None what so ever. There is no physical proof either. Hence the debate.

You wish to bring more? feel free.

So you think that a historical document is only valid if the author met the subject of the article? Do you also believe that the ice age may or may not have happened because no written record from a person living during that time exists?

 

[HumblePie]

So you think that a historical document is only valid if the author met the subject of the article? Do you also believe that the ice age may or may not have happened because no written record from a person living during that time exists?

Don't be stupid. We know an ice age happened not from witness testimony, but from physical evidence.

Witness testimony is not the only way to prove the existence of someone, but it is one way. However, second hand or third hand witness testimony is not proof. It's hearsay. That's why it can't be used in a court of law for a criminal investigation.

On top of that, usually the first hand account of one person is not enough. The person can be lying or delusional. Which is why witness testimony needs to be cross referenced to other first hand witnesses to be valid.

 

[Sclamoz]

So you think that a historical document is only valid if the author met the subject of the article? Do you also believe that the ice age may or may not have happened because no written record from a person living during that time exists?

Uh we know about the Ice age because of Geological evidence. If someone just wrote a book about it or came up with the idea for it with nothing to back it up it would be BS.

 

[CycloWizard]

Don't be stupid. We know an ice age happened not from witness testimony, but from physical evidence.

Witness testimony is not the only way to prove the existence of someone, but it is one way. However, second hand or third hand witness testimony is not proof. It's hearsay. That's why it can't be used in a court of law for a criminal investigation.

On top of that, usually the first hand account of one person is not enough. The person can be lying or delusional. Which is why witness testimony needs to be cross referenced to other first hand witnesses to be valid.

Well, you'll obviously believe what you want. If you don't believe historians, you're not going to believe me. *shrug*

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

ah... the actual papyrus, perhaps. When it was written into a "bible" that is a big negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Mark and Peter writing are about as close to first hand accounts that could be attributed. However, there are no surviving originals last time I checked from either of their hand writings. So, the information entered is second hand, not first.



However, I'll give you one snippet of physical and historical info that may point to the historical reference of Yeshua as a man. That was possibly finding where John the Baptist was entombed. There was a big nice informational show done on I think the Discovery channel called Ancient Discoveries. Either way, in the tomb was found some original manuscripts. Last I check, they were looking to try and prove conclusively one way or another if it is John the Baptist's tomb. If it is, then there may be enough supporting evidence to the existence of Yeshua.

There's a lot of evidence already and it all points to the obvious answer. Here's another one for you to look at...have you ever read "Antiquities" by Josephus?

Josephus was a Jewish historian who wrote the following in his work titled "Antiquities" about 50 years after the crucifiction:

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. 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: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

"The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars." - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Josephus also makes several other references to Jesus in his historical work. And as CycloWizard notes, there are many other non-Christian historic references to Jesus. How much evidence does it take for you to reach an honest conclusion?

 

[Binarycow]

that's one hell of a series of replies that's logical and concise, HumblePie. You don't happen to practice law, do you?

This is why I believe as a teacher that everyone should be exposed to and taught logic and forms of logical arguments when they first enter our public school system. Our society as a whole would have a hell lot less of problems to deal with.

:whiste:

 

[HumblePie]

Well, you'll obviously believe what you want. If you don't believe historians, you're not going to believe me. *shrug*

Nope, the debate is from historians. Again, I never said I didn't believe that Yeshua existed. Go re-read my posts and quote where I said that. To the contrary I said otherwise. I was merely pointing out that there is a debate. The debate is among historians and scientists. It is also among other people, but the fact that there is no conclusive evidence is not in debate. Part of the debate is that doing ancient history and finding conclusive evidence is much harder. As such, much of what is deemed historical fact isn't always. Typically this happens more often as it relates to prominent figures in ancient history. This is one such case. I could give you other "historical" figures with more or evidence supporting they were real. Actually, there was one ancient aztec king that was assumed to be real until recently his tomb was dug up and it was verified.

As for the post by Doc Savage Fan,

Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum,

It was POSSIBLY mentioned. Meaning it's not a direct mention of Yeshua. It's an allegorical reference. It could be, and it could not be. Which is also part of the problem with most of the "historical" writings listed by others. It's not a first hand account and it's not the original manuscript. Without both of those, from at least two first hand witnesses, then it's hearsay.

Also, please cite Doc where I said you were "lying?" and not just calling out what I see a BS? There is a difference.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nope, the debate is from historians. Again, I never said I didn't believe that Yeshua existed. Go re-read my posts and quote where I said that. To the contrary I said otherwise. I was merely pointing out that there is a debate. The debate is among historians and scientists. It is also among other people, but the fact that there is no conclusive evidence is not in debate. Part of the debate is that doing ancient history and finding conclusive evidence is much harder. As such, much of what is deemed historical fact isn't always. Typically this happens more often as it relates to prominent figures in ancient history. This is one such case. I could give you other "historical" figures with more or evidence supporting they were real. Actually, there was one ancient aztec king that was assumed to be real until recently his tomb was dug up and it was verified.

As for the post by Doc Savage Fan,



It was POSSIBLY mentioned. Meaning it's not a direct mention of Yeshua. It's an allegorical reference. It could be, and it could not be. Which is also part of the problem with most of the "historical" writings listed by others. It's not a first hand account and it's not the original manuscript. Without both of those, from at least two first hand witnesses, then it's hearsay.

Also, please cite Doc where I said you were "lying?" and not just calling out what I see a BS? There is a difference.

There were several first hand witnesses you fool. Wow...I'm sorry but I'm done here. I'm afraid that we're wasting each other's time.

 

[HumblePie]

There were several first hand witnesses you fool. Wow...I'm sorry but I'm done here. I'm afraid that we're wasting each other's time.

What first hand witness manuscripts are you referring to then? Point them out. I gave you the only possible one. That there were original manuscripts found in a tomb that could possibly be the tomb of John the Baptist.

Other than that, I don't know of anything. I ask for evidence and you have failed to present any thus far.

Do not confuse the fact that if Yeshua existed, and he did even remotely anything claimed that he did, there would indeed be first hand witnesses. The point I'm trying to make, is that there is no actual accounts from those witnesses. They are all accounts written by people who never met him, or were composed in the name of the accounts of supposed first hand witnesses as in the case of Mark.

 

[Daedalus685]

Hehehe, children who believe in Santa are so damn cute...

Wait, what were we talking about? :\

 

[HumblePie]

Hehehe, children who believe in Santa are so damn cute...

Wait, what were we talking about? :\

Evidence for Yeshua.

 

[Daedalus685]

Evidence for Yeshua.

Yes yes... I know

I must add though... If you found a document written by some historian that said "And Dan was killed in a car accident" in a thousand years how exactly is that proof that I, and not one of the other million Dan's existed? It was a VERY popular name folks! Hell, it still is a popular name.