The real face of Jesus

[CycloWizard]

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.

Yes, it's hard to hit a moving target. But I already demonstrated that your original statement,

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.

is false. All of the sources listed in the JAMA article were written within 70 years of his death. Simply referencing some fringe that doesn't believe that these accounts are factual doesn't make this debate any more legitimate than the ongoing "debate" about whether the earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old.

 

[HumblePie]

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.

Again, it takes more than one piece of evidence. The funny thing about history, is if there is no evidence, then you really didn't exist. Historically speaking of course. However, there should be records of a birth certificate, death cert, marriage cert, school records, possibly a dairy, objects you interacted with that provide physical evidence through dna, or fossilized dna/rna, or an item marked in some way to indicate you messed with it. There are thousands of possible various ways to provide evidence. Admittedly, without preservation, time will eventually erode all evidence. As such the more evidence provided, the more complete the historical picture.

However, there is a problem when one starts following second, third, and even higher hand accounts of evidence. Especially with witness testimony and lack of physical evidence such as dna or something similar. Then you get into things such as the Shroud of Turin which is a "faked" piece of evidence. It makes things harder to identify.

 

[shira]

[/QUOTE]

Is that a hickey I see on his adams apple? Bad, bad, Jesus!

 

[HumblePie]

Yes, it's hard to hit a moving target. But I already demonstrated that your original statement is false. All of the sources listed in the JAMA article were written within 70 years of his death. Simply referencing some fringe that doesn't believe that these accounts are factual doesn't make this debate any more legitimate than the ongoing "debate" about whether the earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old.

If the written evidence was original and proven, then it could possibly be within 70 years of his death. The problem is, it's all COMPILED from second hand writers. There are no originals to cross reference. There are no originals to take carbon samples from. There are NO ORIGINALS. The second hand accounts are all done afterward. I said about 120 years, which was a rough estimate I remembered. Either way, most of these second hand accounts are also done on documents written after his alleged death as well. That is the point I'm making. It's all second hand or third hand or worse.

 

[shiner]

If only Jeebus had a Twitter account...........

 

[shira]

The only reason it is still debated is because people deny the veracity of the scientific tests, and they don't want the scientists to keep testing and proving them wrong even more.

Science is valuable only if it reinforces the existence of an invisible, magical super-being.

 

[CycloWizard]

If the written evidence was original and proven, then it could possibly be within 70 years of his death. The problem is, it's all COMPILED from second hand writers. There is no originals to cross reference. There is no originals to take carbon samples from. There is NO ORIGINALS. The second hand accounts are all done afterward. I said about 120 years, which was a rough estimate I remembered. Either way, most of these second hand accounts are also done on documents written after his alleged death as well. That is the point I'm making. It's all second hand or third hand or worse.

So nothing actually happened until we started writing daily newspapers? I'm sorry that your standard for what constitutes a historical fact is stricter than JAMA's, but as you have yet to debunk the legal-historical method, which is the standard applied by historians, you don't have any legitimate foundation for your statements. Do you even understand what it is?

 

[HumblePie]

So nothing actually happened until we started writing daily newspapers? I'm sorry that your standard for what constitutes a historical fact is stricter than JAMA's, but as you have yet to debunk the legal-historical method, which is the standard applied by historians, you don't have any legitimate foundation for your statements. Do you even understand what it is?

legal-historical method huh? You are reading the links I'm giving you? Or are you pulling shit out your ass? Again, read the controversy sections by historians. Have you never heard the statement, "History is black and white, writing history is grey." Also, don't be stupid with the strawman tactic with the newspaper comment. Let's take some other historical figures in regards to history. Famous one that predate Yeshua.

Let's take one of the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, such as Tut. There was plenty of second and third hand accounts about him at first. Then there was some first hand accounts. There are easy supporting physical evidence about the possibility of his existence such as the pyramids. However, once his tomb and body were found, and all evidence pointed to that body being Tut, then could historians truly establish that person correctly in history.

Now a body is not required to prove the existence of a ancient historical figure. Just enough cross referenced first hand original accounts can do. Go look up how historians actually "record" history and how it is done. There is also a reason the "history" of Yeshua is usually taught in a religion study course and not typically in an actual history course.

 

[Throckmorton]

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW... 2002 article http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html

 

[Sclamoz]

So nothing actually happened until we started writing daily newspapers? I'm sorry that your standard for what constitutes a historical fact is stricter than JAMA's, but as you have yet to debunk the legal-historical method, which is the standard applied by historians, you don't have any legitimate foundation for your statements. Do you even understand what it is?

I think you should go read some ancient Greek and Roman history. They didn't write like modern historians do. Can you find a source for any of those historians writings about Jesus?

Internal criticism: historical reliability

R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:

1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?
2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?
3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?
1. Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
2. When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.
3. What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?
4. Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?
4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?

 

[HumblePie]

Oh as for the 120 years... here is where that came from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Earliest surviving papyrus manuscript "piece", and one attributed to John the Baptist, is from 125. However, since it's dated so late after either death of Yeshua or the beheading of John, it is obvious second hand account. Why is it I'm providing better evidence for Yeshua than either Cyclo or Doc Savage Fan? Oh yah, because I think I have actually studied this and am not pulling crap out my ass.

 

[shira]

legal-historical method huh? You are reading the links I'm giving you? Or are you pulling shit out your ass? Again, read the controversy sections by historians. Have you never heard the statement, "History is black and white, writing history is grey." Also, don't be stupid with the strawman tactic with the newspaper comment. Let's take some other historical figures in regards to history. Famous one that predate Yeshua.

Let's take one of the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, such as Tut. There was plenty of second and third hand accounts about him at first. Then there was some first hand accounts. There are easy supporting physical evidence about the possibility of his existence such as the pyramids. However, once his tomb and body were found, and all evidence pointed to that body being Tut, then could historians truly establish that person correctly in history.

Now a body is not required to prove the existence of a ancient historical figure. Just enough cross referenced first hand original accounts can do. Go look up how historians actually "record" history and how it is done. There is also a reason the "history" of Yeshua is usually taught in a religion study course and not typically in an actual history course.

You're not giving CycloWizard enough credit. He completely understands your argument - no explanations required. He just doesn't want to admit that you're correct.

 

[HumblePie]

The other fun thing of why it's hard to use later hand accounts is take "revelations" in the bible. While the author is unknown, it's purported to have been written by John the Baptist.

In revelations it talks about Armageddon, the Four Horse man, the end of the world and apocalypse.

However, in papyrus manuscripts found at the alleged tomb(s) of John the Baptist, a different story is shown. Because pieces are missing, the full story is harder to decipher but it refers to Mount of Megiddo and the roman fourth calvary set to kill all christians in the vicinity.

Because of these huge discrepancies, this is why second and third hand accounts are not used for historical accuracy.

 

[bfdd]

I don't think there's anything wrong with debating if Jesus actually lived or not. There's not enough evidence. I tend to believe he did, but it's impossible to know for sure right now.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't think there's anything wrong with debating if Jesus actually lived or not. There's not enough evidence. I tend to believe he did, but it's impossible to know for sure right now.

My point exactly.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I don't think there's anything wrong with debating if Jesus actually lived or not. There's not enough evidence. I tend to believe he did, but it's impossible to know for sure right now.

Among a lot of people, including a lot of atheists, it's taken as a priori that Jesus existed, which has always puzzled me. I'm not asserting that he never lived, but given the two possibilities and applying Occam's Razor my default position is that he probably didn't.

 

[werepossum]

AFAIK, there is no mention of Jesus's appearance in the Bible. So one can assume that he did not look significantly different from the other people in the region at that time.

I've always thought that as well. If Jesus have been a fair-skinned, blue-eyed blond there should be a record of someone saying "Wow, lookit the freak! You ain't from around here, are ya boy?" Also, from what I've read long hair would have been right out.

 

[CycloWizard]

legal-historical method huh? You are reading the links I'm giving you? Or are you pulling shit out your ass? Again, read the controversy sections by historians. Have you never heard the statement, "History is black and white, writing history is grey." Also, don't be stupid with the strawman tactic with the newspaper comment. Let's take some other historical figures in regards to history. Famous one that predate Yeshua.

Let's take one of the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, such as Tut. There was plenty of second and third hand accounts about him at first. Then there was some first hand accounts. There are easy supporting physical evidence about the possibility of his existence such as the pyramids. However, once his tomb and body were found, and all evidence pointed to that body being Tut, then could historians truly establish that person correctly in history.

Now a body is not required to prove the existence of a ancient historical figure. Just enough cross referenced first hand original accounts can do. Go look up how historians actually "record" history and how it is done. There is also a reason the "history" of Yeshua is usually taught in a religion study course and not typically in an actual history course.

It's the method cited in the JAMA article I quoted for you earlier. As for your links, I can produce links that say anything I want. That's why I cited a peer-reviewed paper from a well-respected journal which cited plenty of other papers in other peer-reviewed journals. You simply throw these on the fire, despite not even reading them, because you don't agree with them. That makes it obvious that you're not interested in what historians or scientists really think. But peer-reviewed articles are generally pulled out of one's ass, whereas Wikipedia links are hard evidence, at least in your twisted world.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Frontline: From Jesus to Christ

"... a righteous radical Jew railin' against the (Ro)man(s) ..."






(okay. I made that part up. But for the most part, it's true. And if you haven't seen it you should watch it.)





--

 

[StageLeft]

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.

If you're going to take this approach it should be said that going by such standards basically nothing ever happened around this time or before it anywhere by anybody. There is very little irrefutable written evidence of anything back this far.

 

[HeXen]

he was a radical, nothing more, like a less violent version of Osama Bin Laden without weapons using only speeches to the poor who were much more easily influenced. he would have looked like every other jew at the time as well.

 

[Cogman]

The other fun thing of why it's hard to use later hand accounts is take "revelations" in the bible. While the author is unknown, it's purported to have been written by John the Baptist.

In revelations it talks about Armageddon, the Four Horse man, the end of the world and apocalypse.

However, in papyrus manuscripts found at the alleged tomb(s) of John the Baptist, a different story is shown. Because pieces are missing, the full story is harder to decipher but it refers to Mount of Megiddo and the roman fourth calvary set to kill all christians in the vicinity.

Because of these huge discrepancies, this is why second and third hand accounts are not used for historical accuracy.

You realize that there is more then one John in the bible. The John of revelations could have been a number of different Johns.

Though, I do agree with your point that second hand transcripts can often be altered. There would be no way proving one way or another that it was faked. It is very likely that the bible in its current form has seen multiple alterations.

 

[AstroManLuca]

BTW... 2002 article http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html

I already tried posting that. No one pays attention. They just post walls of text at each other, over and over again.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The other fun thing of why it's hard to use later hand accounts is take "revelations" in the bible. While the author is unknown, it's purported to have been written by John the Baptist.

In revelations it talks about Armageddon, the Four Horse man, the end of the world and apocalypse.

However, in papyrus manuscripts found at the alleged tomb(s) of John the Baptist, a different story is shown. Because pieces are missing, the full story is harder to decipher but it refers to Mount of Megiddo and the roman fourth calvary set to kill all christians in the vicinity.

Because of these huge discrepancies, this is why second and third hand accounts are not used for historical accuracy.

The traditional view of scholars is that the Book of Revelation was written by John the Apostle...not John the Baptist. John the Baptist was long dead before this book was written. Wow...you never cease to amaze me.