What evidence is there to prove Jesus was mortal?
>>540740
He died.
>implying the burden of proof isn't on the one who makes claims that wildly deviate from what we know
>>540755
[citation needed]
I'm sure hell be fine
What evidence is there to prove that i am a mortal?
>>540740
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to
be crucified and to die.
And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." Flavius Josephus, Roman historian.
>>540740
The true question
What evidence is there to prove Jesus was socialist?
All we know is that people who heard about Jesus from second-hand oral accounts said that they heard he came back from the dead.
And Paul wrote down that he had a vision of Jesus.
And some other historians wrote down that Christians existed, and what they believed.
There is enough to say Jesus is based on one or more real figures from history, but there could never be enough to prove he performed actual magic.
For example, if I claimed I could walk through walls, what kind of evidence would you need before you believed me? Note that in this example I can only speak to you through this message board.
>>541120
Interpolation
Besides jeses was not the Messiah the Jews expected anyway.
They were promised a conqueror not Bacchus the builder.
>>541125
His opposition to Roman imperial taxation was why he was crucified alongside two insurrectionists, a punishment specifically used for rebels. He obviously wasn't a by-the-book socialist but theres alot of overlap.
>>541133
Because Paul converts sometime around 35AD, and he was persecuting Christians before this date (if Jesus was born in 5 BC, He would've died in 30) so about a 5 years gap of Christians being killed for believing Jesus is their Messiah. (2000 years later, Jews should know by now He already came)
I think the "magic" claim comes from the Jews, I think the kind of "magic" Jesus did wasn't spell crafting and stuff, not pentagrams and summoning spirits, rather Jesus had an esoteric teaching that helped people advance to understanding God, and being able to have a relationship with God.
And this couldn't have been standard Orthodox teachings at first, He had to have been doing something.
>>540740
Is there any evidence that Jesus existed at all?
>>541206
So Paul is one guy whose job it was to investigate one particular cult, and he is converted by them during that investigation.
He's still the earliest writings about Jesus, and there is still no claim that he met Jesus, or any of Jesus' named followers.
>>541211
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/surprising-archaeological-find-proof-of-jesus-existence
I know it might not be much right away but it's pretty decent.
>>541224
thank you. I have been meaning to read the bible with the intent to gain a deeper understating of the message conveyed by Jesus. often people say he has a beautiful message regardless of whether he existed or not.
>>541221
The popular story is that Paul persecuted Christians, and then one day Jesus appeared to him and says, "Why do you hate me?"
Paul, due to his authority to travel and relate with the Romans, Jews, and common people, was able to then spread the Gospel of his own Revelation.
Then Paul was killed for his belief. Think this was Nero's persecution of early Christians around 64?
>>541228
Citation?
>>541228
>The popular story is that Paul persecuted Christians, and then one day Jesus appeared to him and says, "Why do you hate me?"
Jesus appeared in a vision. This is evidence of what Christians believed, not evidence of the existence of Jesus.
>Then Paul was killed for his belief. Think this was Nero's persecution of early Christians around 64?
Around the time the first secular sources about Christians appear.
>>541226
I really like Matthew and John, but each Gospel portrays Jesus in a slightly different way, so you are getting the authors insight into their rendition of Jesus. The story is passed down through what I believe to be disciplic succession, where if it wasn't written by an Apostle it was the Gospel handed down from an Apostles to a disciple who later recorded it.
I know He tells His apostles not to travel with anything they don't need, and preach the Gospel (in likeness of ascetic monks) if I could find the quote I would
Epistle of James is really good too.
>>541204
To add to this, there was a lot of collectivism in the early churches. I know Acts covers this quite a bit.
>>541196
>Interpolation
Something tell me heard another atheist about Josephus quote being incorrect and you went along it.
This is just like what is written "...but they became futile in their speculations, and their...heart was darkened..."
Here the interpolated quote:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats 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. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
But the I post is the one which scholars generally accept, despite being a later text.
>>541232
For what?
I think it's Tacitus who mentions Christians being persecuted in 64AD by Nero, not sure of the date of the document and some people refute it's authenticity but there is much evidence against it being real or fake... like Jesus (unless you believe in Him :)
And Paul is mentioned during as Saul when he kills Christians and Paul after His conversion
>>541247
that is pretty interesting. i might actually start reading it today. i have the king james version that includes the old and new testament
>>541260
This proves Christians existed, but nobody disputes that.
>>541234
This is the thing with many Christians, is that they believe in Jesus only after He appears to them. Some have the doctrine and church, others know Him by observing God throughout their daily routine. His "appearance" happens usually after implied trauma of something that is significant to you.
If you were Paul killing people, then Jesus comes to you, that is just one example.
>>541265
Yeah, but if you really believed in Jesus back then enough to die for Him, that's almost evidence of Christ existing.
>>541267
Then we're agreeing that Paul never met Jesus?
That the first accounts of Jesus the person were written a generation after his death?
>>540763
Just look at Quran.
>>541273
Then Islam is true, since people are willing to die for that faith?
>>541273
Even when I was a Christian, I always thought this was a weak arguement. People die for dumb shit all the time. All the other religious people did for their faith. In fact, people die for ideologies, the state, and even for no damn reason at all. Why is it so convincing that a handful of people stuck it for The Man and got crucified? Cause if we're going by that logix, Islam or Buddhist seem to have the most feverish following.
>>541278
Paul doesn't physically meet Jesus, but if you believe in God, you believe Paul met Jesus in Spirit.
The Gospels date anywhere from 60 to 100. You ask a Christian they'll give you the earliest date and you ask someone secular they'll give you an outrageous date.
>Christian says they were written in 30
>athiest says they were written on 120
Just kidding
https://carm.org/when-was-acts-written
It's a good link and gives reasonable dates.
>>541298
>Paul doesn't physically meet Jesus, but if you believe in God, you believe Paul met Jesus in Spirit.
Like I say, we agree that Paul did not meet Jesus. He had a vision. And really this is all the proof that any non-believer needs, for god to actually announce itself. Apparently only a few people qualify for this privilege.
>The Gospels date anywhere from 60 to 100. You ask a Christian they'll give you the earliest date and you ask someone secular they'll give you an outrageous date.
60-100 is about right, one generation after the alleged death of Jesus, a few anonymous writers copied down oral traditions.
A few Roman writers noted that Christianity existed and what they believed.
>>541293
Were talking about a group of people called Christians existing around 64 AD, and it leading to whether or not Jesus Christ existed in c30AD. Islam happened way later than this date.
In context though I get what you mean, but you have to remember the spiritual validity and the dates of (30 - 70) and understand this isn't that big of a gap of dates.
>>541298
I always heard the argument that since the Scriptures were recorded so close to the actual event (for ancient text), that they must be consistent. But from my understanding, there is substantial evidence of the church "fixing" text over time and using the classic religious "just figurative brah". How do Christian defend that besides "guided by the Holy Sipirit"?
>>541295
About 30 years after Jesus dies, people are willing to die for Him.
Consider why people were persecuting them in the first place.
It makes sense that if Christians existed that Jesus existed before them. Physical evidence, not so much but if you apply the conditions of the story to history it isn't like it is unbelievable. About 30-40 years?
That's like they can't find out when someone was born, so they'll give you something like
>40BC-10BC
>>541305
>Were talking about a group of people called Christians existing around 64 AD, and it leading to whether or not Jesus Christ existed in c30AD. Islam happened way later than this date.
People died for Islam while Mohammed was still alive, doesn't this make their claim stronger? If not, why not?
>30-70
That's a bigger gap than with Islam. Again, you are saying that Islam has the stronger claim.
People died for Christianity because they were told Jesus existed by people who claimed to have met Jesus, but people died for Islam because they met Mohammed.
>>541314
What year was Jesus born?
>>541304
I don't agree. Paul meets Jesus. I think the physical proof is irrelevant for the believer, and the non-believer only gets proof through spiritual practice.
Spirituality and physicality are two different things.
>>541327
Believers need no proof, non-believers need to practice to believe, except for Paul, who is the sole mortal who gets actual proof?
Paul doesn't meet Jesus the historical figure, and doesn't claim to, so his testimony can't be added to support the existence of Jesus as a real, physical, human being.
>>541260
He mentions 'crestians' but no Christians. In fact I that time the Christianity would have been nearly indistinguishable from judaism.
That still does not answer the question of paul.
>>541313
The problem with "the church" is that they are all fighting over who is more right than the other. So, where are the real Christians?
Personally I grew up in a church that lacked in the Holy Spirit, not that it wasn't there, but priests shouldn't have rivalries and the church shouldn't have been excited that Obama was elected president, and the list goes on.
The Holy Spirit is everywhere. I think God would be happier if you picked up Islam rather than be an athiest, even if Christianity is the Way, the Holy Spirit empowers us to start somewhere.
And that's just one idea of how the Holy Spirit works, you are gonna get different answers from different Christians about who wrote the Bible.
>tfw God wrote the Bible
>mfw people tampered with it
People think it is a heresy to believe that the Bible was written by human hands. Inspired by the Holy Spirit of course, but people can have the worst of intentions and try and stop the Holy Spirit from flowing, you know?
>>541342
Then explain how two Christians who are in dispute over gods intentions settle the matter.
If you think Christianity is the way, then no other religious belief can be a stepping stone towards it. You either think that the only important fact of life is that Jesus is the son of god, or you don't.
>>541316
They are both pretty strong.
If Jesus dies in c30AD, and Paul converts c35 AD, Paul persecuted Christians before this date for believing in Jesus.
Then in 64, Christians still believe and are still being killed for what they believe in.
Same for Islam, Muhammed was converting polytheistic Arabia to monotheism, and then when Muslims were getting persecuted they had faith in the Revelation of Muhammad's testimony.
>>541325
7BC being the earliest date.
>>541335
Paul had spiritual practice too. His revelation came for a reason because he was killing people and it needed to stop. It isn't like he just wrote some letters, his vision had to have been strong and he had to have been spiritually adept in order to recieve the vision as well.
>>541338
Christ / Chrest, the sound of the vowels I and E could be interchangeable.
>>541356
When was Jesus born?
>>541360
So he would have died in 26 AD, then? Paul converts a decade later.
Then god did not reveal itself to Paul, Paul practiced and came to believe? If this is the case, doesn't it invalidate the whole story?
>>541374
7BC being the earliest date
>>541378
You're looking at circa dates, not literal solid dates.
7 BC to 0 AD. Jesus dies around 30 AD, and might have been 33 years old when He died. Who is to say He was 34 years old or maybe even close to His 40s?
Even if Jesus died in 26, Paul was still killing Christians and still received a revelation from Jesus around 35 AD maybe a couple years later
>>541371
No some names crestus was in the city at that time. His group was diffrent from the Christian. And as before the Christians and jews would have been indistinguishable at this time.
There is also a photo of the document with clear erasure marks.
>jesus is a metaphor for civilization
>>541259
Meh still does not prove anything especially since it was not contemporary. And that Jesus and James were fairly common names.
>>541393
The name would be in Greek though, who is Chrest?
It seems the name is interchangeable.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/chrestos%20christos.htm
>>541388
You will need to cite that.
>>541388
>Even if Jesus died in 26, Paul was still killing Christians and still received a revelation from Jesus around 35 AD maybe a couple years later
This proves the existence of Christians, not Jesus.
If god decided to give everyone the same revelation it gave Saul of Tarsus, then we might all believe too. All we really have to go on is that a man who knew what Christians believed wrote down what Christians believed. And a few decades later some anonymous authors wrote down oral accounts of the life of Jesus, and some Roman writers wrote down what Christians believed.
>>541408
What's there to cite? They're estimation dates
>>541407
It was not cretsos it was crestus.
Tacitus also seems to think the leader of the cult was actually in the city which clearly can't be the case with jesus.
Here us the crestians highlight
>>541424
>>541417
That Paul persecuted anyone. Hell even that Christians could even be distinguished from judaism at that point when most sources seem to state the opposite.
>>541412
>This proves the existence of Christians, not Jesus.
Christians don't exist without Jesus
>If god decided to give everyone the same revelation it gave Saul of Tarsus, then we might all believe too.
"If" God gave the revelation to everyone but He doesn't because the Way of God isn't the same as the way of man.
We logically could say "well why doesn't God do this" but it is not up for humanity to decide what God should do, for we are inferior to God. And "God" is just a small word to describe what "God" actually is
>All we really have to go on is that a man who knew what Christians believed wrote down what Christians believed.
Through application you can find out more.
>And a few decades later some anonymous authors wrote down oral accounts of the life of Jesus, and some Roman writers wrote down what Christians believed.
It is very likely the Apostles handed down their sermon and it wasn't written down until later
Jesus tells His apostles to preach the Gospel with only taking a robe and a stick (can't find quote rn, I know it's in one Gospel) and they start getting killed in 64 ish too.
Plus, all the Christians were getting killed as soon as Jesus died. Why write down His story when you're trying to save your life?
>>541424
What's wrong with using an eraser?
>>541437
If I was a Google search engine I would answer that for you. It's in the Bible, and if you are going to discredit it as a source then how will you ever prove Jesus had any authenticity?
You don't take it blindly, you can apply it to the historical dates around the Bible as well.
>>541450
>It's in the Bible, and if you are going to discredit it as a source then how will you ever prove Jesus had any authenticity?
Yes. Given the appalling state of the bible as a historical source. Its genre, compilation, distance, copying, how will you ever?
The answer is you don't.
>>541439
>Christians don't exist without Jesus
I don't follow? It's not possible to believe in the existence of someone who didn't exist? None of those who write about Jesus even claim to have met him.
>"If" God gave the revelation to everyone but He doesn't because the Way of God isn't the same as the way of man.
Sure.
>We logically could say "well why doesn't God do this" but it is not up for humanity to decide what God should do, for we are inferior to God. And "God" is just a small word to describe what "God" actually is
So you don't have to answer these kind of questions, god has told you the answers aren't your business.
>Through application you can find out more.
I have.
>It is very likely the Apostles handed down their sermon and it wasn't written down until later
That's exactly what happened. They told their stories about Jesus, and over the next few centuries people picked which ones they liked best and made the bible.
>Plus, all the Christians were getting killed as soon as Jesus died. Why write down His story when you're trying to save your life?
How do you know this? Nobody wrote down anything about Jesus during his life or death. We have Paul from a decade later.
>>541439
I am not the guy you are talking to so I will bow out after saying this.
Your first argument is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. You clearly do not understand the implications.
This means flat earth's are correct 9/11 truthers are correct as well as EVERY OTHER RELIGION.
>>541454
That's the problem then.
If Jesus really did bring up that much of a controversy, then alot of this stuff wouldn't be in a seperate book.
You have to at least give it some credibility.
>>541465
No its nat a matter of have to.
We can't.
It is too unreliable known to be false in many instances and internally inconsistent.
Just because people believe something lends no credence.
We believe wring thongs all the time.
What evidence is there to prove David Bowie was mortal?
>>541461
Disciplic succession is how the Gospels were handed down of anything, but 50 (Paul) to 60-70 (Gospel dates) isn't really that big of a difference for someone to have faith Jesus existed.
Also, divine revelation to certain people who believe in God.
>So you don't have to answer these kind of questions, god has told you the answers aren't your business.
Nothing about what I said ever made this implied. Giving out decent answers here you know.
>That's exactly what happened. They told their stories about Jesus, and over the next few centuries people picked which ones they liked best and made the bible.
Giving us a good description of Jesus
>How do you know this? Nobody wrote down anything about Jesus during his life or death. We have Paul from a decade later.
Paul persecuted Christians before his conversion and Nero in 64 so it's just very likely historically. Divine revelation isn't a historical document, so it depends one what your spiritual state you are in, which to someone who doesn't believe in the nature of the soul, sounds ridiculous
>>541470
Well if you try to line up historical dates to estimate events in the Bible, that's how you make it work.
>>541399
Not to be rude, but did you read someone else's debates and copy & paste them?
It feels like Déjà vu. I had this discussion with someone on FJ with almost exact replies.
>Jesus and James were fairly common names
1.) Citation, please.
2.) I didn't mention James. Oh, you old boy, you have been doing your homework, I see. Heh heh heh.
3.) Only one Jesus (or Jeshu) has been the attention of being called Christ or messiah, being crucified in favor of the Jews & Rome and known to miracles/sorcery towards one person.
Here, just in case the thread ends before we could converse any farther.
http://paxexsistovos.blogspot.com/2012/01/tacitus-suetonius-pliny-younger.html
>>541473
Dude, that's heartless.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35278872
>>541484
>Well if you try to line up historical dates to estimate events in the Bible, that's how you make it work.
This isn't an adequate argument that a source is fruitful historically for its claims about its contents.
>>541518
It's a pretty adequate argument as a source for fruitful historical claims about its contents.
>>541522
I just wrote this: Nero existed around 64. Jesus was a lesbian.
I think we can all know agree Jesus was a lesbian, you can make the dates line up.
Do learn what history is.
>>541550
How you gonna look for Jesus is He was never written down in the Bible?
Feel like there's a good amount of evidence in the thread to at least begin searching out for yourself.
>>541501
That entire page is bald face biased apologetic. It hand waves even valid critique.
Tacitus was recounting what they believed not staring dact.
The crestus thing was covered earlier
This really is not the place to wade through that horseshit.
>>541582
It was pretty good.
>>541557
>How you gonna look for Jesus
Without bastardising history and making it my whore.
>>541589
Without (verb) history and making it my (noun)
>>541557
I turned my Holy Spirit communicator all the way up to the highest power to find out where he went. He turned into a chicken and flew to Russia where he got turned into soup by a Russian peasant.
Anyone that refuses to believe me is a naturalist, materalist, logical positivist and probably a Marxist as well.
>>541588
No it wasnt.
>>541601
It's different when you are the one making it ridiculous.
There is still a practical way behind it that lines up historically.
>>541603
Yeah that was a nice link
>>541606
Well it worked that was the only good think about it.
Apologetics are always bad.
>>541604
Typical commie. Go away and worship Richard Dawkins.
>>541610
Just saying it still lines up practically.
>>541606
Half if the hand waving was if it weren't true then the would not try to refute it.
It's like that moron that said that Christians priced the existence of christ.
>>541619
Actually Christ priced the term Christian.
>>541625
ment proved typing to fast on a phone.
>>540740
You mean immortal
>>541582
>That entire page is bald face...apologetic.
Well, he does appear to shave. In that aspect; you're right.
>Tacitus was recounting what they believed...
It's still has credibility in why Christians were executed, what sets them apart from the common Roman citizen, it came from Judea, Pontius Pilate was involved and "the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time..." This also suggest Jews was attacking Christians, then later Christians manage to spread through out the Roman world...This quote not only reflects the gospel, but also the book of Acts and Romans.
Let's face if this wasn't about the bible you won't disagree much about it.
>>541653
I question whether they were the still had not broken from judaism since tacitus seems to think they were just jews.
There is also no evidence of Christians being kill for being Christians out side of christian sources.
Romans really weren't in the habit of doing that for just religious reasons.
That is simply untrue the only reason this nonsense still has legs is because it is part of a religion.
Normally this minor event would be filled away as dubious unverifiable sidestory .
>Jesus was a man
>all men are mortal
>jesus was mortal
Given how extraordinary the claim "Jesus was not mortal", to consider it true there must be very strong evidence to support it - stronger evidence than a 2000 tear old book written by a combination of Jesus' friends and people who never met him, and which is most likely at least partially metaphorical.
>>541711
You're overstating how strong the evidence is. None of the NT was written by anyone that ever met Jesus.
