Was Jesus a real Historically proven Person ?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Pontius Pilate had a reputation as a ruthless governor; it's an open question why he would defer to the opinion of the Jews when he could execute or release whomever he wished.

[Hal.]

I had a look at the old image of Jesus and I think there is no crown . You see his hairstyle with a few Celtic style curls ! I think that the cross above his head is not part of a crown , it is background decoration . Maybe , the people in this image had to be shown to be dressed well because nobody would be converted to any belief that was associated with a bunch of scruffy looking hippies .

 

And if the idea of the Trinity was unknown to any , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity , so saying Jesus sat at the right hand of god is inaccurate . The trinity is that there is God the son , God the father and God the holy ghost , 1 god , 3 parts .

 

 

[Brainteaserfan]

I had a look at the old image of Jesus and I think there is no crown . You see his hairstyle with a few Celtic style curls ! I think that the cross above his head is not part of a crown , it is background decoration . Maybe , the people in this image had to be shown to be dressed well because nobody would be converted to any belief that was associated with a bunch of scruffy looking hippies .

 

And if the idea of the Trinity was unknown to any , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity , so saying Jesus sat at the right hand of god is inaccurate . The trinity is that there is God the son , God the father and God the holy ghost , 1 god , 3 parts .

Acts 7:56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Mark 16:19 etc

 

Here's the Mark verse: So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

 

Are you sure Jesus isn't on the Father's right hand? The Bible sure seems to indicate that to me.

[Hal.]

.......................................................

(in heaven he supposedly sits on the

right hand of God / Lord of Lords

and King of Kings).

.......................................................

 

 

Hopefully we won't have a huge misunderstanding here . When markearthling said , ' he supposedly sits on the right hand of god ' , this reads a bit weird as Jesus Christ is God and also the Holy Ghost is God . That's why I put the wiki link for TRINITY .

 

I'm no theologian , Brainteaserfan , if your bible says what it says , follow it .

[Brainteaserfan]

Hopefully we won't have a huge misunderstanding here . When markearthling said , ' he supposedly sits on the right hand of god ' , this reads a bit weird as Jesus Christ is God and also the Holy Ghost is God . That's why I put the wiki link for TRINITY .

 

I'm no theologian , Brainteaserfan , if your bible says what it says , follow it .

I understand why you put the link for trinity in. However, I disagreed with your conclusion when you said, "so saying Jesus sat at the right hand of god is inaccurate." I believe that if the Bible is true, then He must sit at the right hand of God (the Father).

 

"if your Bible says" I thought you posted in a thread about abortion "am I the only catholic here". While that seemed a bit random, then it isn't just, my Bible. It is The Bible, which is also your Bible, that says that.

 

P.S. I'm no theologian. I came here to discuss science, but when I saw extremely different beliefs from mine being posted in the religion forum, I decided to share some thoughts here.

 

For the admin: it might be good if the topic name was changed to something like, "Is there historical proof/evidence of Jesus's earthly existance?". I think that changing the title would help the topic to show up in more google searches.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Hal.]

Brainteaserfan , Does your bible ( Acts 7:56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Mark 16:19 etc ) ,

 

say ,

 

" So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God " ,

 

or does it say ,

 

" So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God the Father " ?

 

 

The point I'm making is , Jesus can't sit at the right hand of God if he is God . But he can sit at the right hand of God the Father .

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Every Bible translation I just checked (from King James to New International Version) says "at the right hand of God," but this is not entirely surprising -- the Bible does not explicitly refer to or explain the Trinity. It is a later theological creation to explain references to the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son of God in the New Testament.

 

Given the frequent references to "son of God" in the Gospels, I don't see why it is implausible for a son to sit next to his Father, who happens to be God.

[Hal.]

So , the way I'm trying to understand this is that the later explanation of the Trinity caused a grammatical paradox or two in the previous wording of the Bible if someone was to look for them .

[Brainteaserfan]

So , the way I'm trying to understand this is that the later explanation of the Trinity caused a grammatical paradox or two in the previous wording of the Bible if someone was to look for them .

If God was referring to God the Father, then it makes sense. We are dealing with a book that has been translated, and it is possible that they didn't do it perfectly, and, IMO, could have possibly not put in, the Father, even though it may have been implied in the original text.

[markearthling]

Having another look at that 1200 year old irish image of Jesus

supplied by HAL above the images' headgear is a little rough looking

almost like a crown of thorns OR it could be some kind of

fancy tousled hat which they may have worn way back then

but it doesn't seem at all like what you would imagine a crown

would normally look like (although notice the Cross topping

the headgear which can be seen on other crowns found

in christendom/europe and perhaps UK).

 

Then again it may just be the persons' hair as has been suggested.

 

 

Cap'n Refsmmat

 

Pontius Pilate had a reputation as a ruthless governor; it's an open question

why he would defer to the opinion of the Jews when he could execute or

release whomever he wished.

 

Pontius Pilate may have been a ruthless governor as you said

BUT remember that people back in those times were VERY

superstitious. The romans had a pantheon of Gods themselves

which they made sure to placate with the necessary

sacrifices and religious ceremonies whenever possible.

At one stage in rome (and I am not suggesting that this relates

to the time frame we are discussing just the relevance in terms of the

roman religious mind set in general) there apparently was an

temple or alter set up to the veneration of what was described as the unknown

God (to ensure that their actions did not bring down the wrath

of a deity that they were not aware of).

 

So pilate, as ruthless as he may have been may also still

have been concerned about the consequences

of killing Jesus (what will the Gods or any unknown God

[ the Jewish God ?] do to me for this i.e. in the afterlife

he may have been disadvantaged because of this).

 

Remember that his wife warned him about killing Jesus

(of course another open question) because

"she had suffered much in a dream about him"

i.e. she warned him to not do anything against

that righteous man (the wording may in fact be

something like "have nothing to do with this righteous person".

 

On the subject of deferring to the jews as to who

he released or not yes he could have totally ignored

jewish wishes but perhaps he being superstitious

as most people/romans were in those times

and not wanting to offend any God/Deity

(and because he considered Jesus was not what he was made out

by the jews i.e. not at fault)

he may have decided to give Jesus a chance at freedom

so he threw the release question open to the jews

present in the crowd

(pilate may have considered this another way to gain favour

with the Gods, known or otherwise so as to not offend any

deity).

 

It could hence be possible that pilate (the ruthless)

had other reasons for not wanting there to be any roman record

of the audience/judgement and crucifixion of Jesus.

(reasons of superstition/religion).

Also the romans were hated by many jews and giving

them what they wanted may help him to govern

more easily in the future (reasons of politics and practicality).

 

The jews probably did not want any records kept

so if pilate did/ensured the same thing

then he may have been getting more on side

with the jewish establishment and furthering

his own cause of governance and that of

his mother state/empire Rome.

 

As an example of how much Jesus was hated by the jews

consider that he was crucified in the company of

criminals (one crucified on each side of Jesus at

Golgotha (place of the skull)).

The jews wanted him to be identified with criminals

and the implication is that he broke their most

sanctified religious laws and like any other criminal

he deserved the death penalty for his blasphemies

against God and their laws.

 

Apparently the romans put a wooden plaque

over Jesus head on the cross which

read something like "this is the King

of the Jews" but no way did the jews

want that read or repeated by anyone

as they did not recognise Jesus as their

Messiah/Christ and certainly did not want

this blaspheming criminal for their King

so they requested that pilate change

the wording of the plaque to

"This man said that he is the King of the Jews"

to discredit the idea BUT pilates response

was "What I have written I have written"

and that was that.

 

as

 

 

[Hal.]

Slightly higher resolution , direct link , for the previous image .

 

http://upload.wikime...stEnthroned.jpg

[Athena]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421

 

These ancient metal books might give us more information. They were found in a cave in Jordan, and it is known some Christians fled to this area. Unfortunately, a dispute over who is the rightful owner of the lead books, seems to be hindering a study of them.

 

If there were no man known as Jesus, how might have this deviation from Judaism occurred? The theology and mythology and philosophy associated with Jesus, seems to have several origins, Sumer, Egypt, Persia and Zoroastrianism, and of course the influence of Hellenism, but I think, there had to be a known person to attach all these mythologies too.

 

I think it important that Jesus was a rural Jew, and opposed the well connected Jews at the temple. I think Jesus was an anarchist with followers. I am not sure he gave us the religion that Paul gave us, but I do believe the man did exist.

[Hal.]

God the Anarchist ! That may be a little difficult to get the parish priest to agree to .

[Marat]

It is also important to note how little accurate record-keeping there was at the time when Christ purportedly lived.

 

First, the ancient world did not operate with the same strict separation between myth and reality that our more scientific and objective culture has to use, so even serious historians like Herodotus and Thycidides invented speeches for their historical characters to move the story along, and every army would be said to be 'ten thousand men strong' with no attempt to determine its actual size. So stories about Christ have to be taken with a grain of salt and not treated as even having been intended to be accurate in the modern sense of the term.

 

Second, recording things was itself a very difficult process, given how expensive and rare papyrus and other forms of primitive 'paper' were. They generally had to be imported from just two places, Egypt and Phoenicia, where the right kind of reeds grew for making them, so unless you were willing to take the time and effort to carve something onto stone or paint it on a piece of broken pottery, you had to pay a lot to write something down. This is why so much of what was known was recorded in verse so that it could be preserved by people simply memorizing it, as was done with the works of Homer.

 

Third, as one poster has already pointed out, Christ was not all that special in his time, since ancient Judea was full of religious fanatics who button-holed people to harrangue them about some new theory, trying to establish their credibility by performing a few magic tricks. Many Jews regarded Christ as primarily announcing the return of the earthly rule of the House of David over Judea, so he was more a political reformer than a magician or saint, much less a son of God. Given all of these factors, Christ wouldn't have seemed sufficiently important during his lifetime to be worth depicting.

[markearthling]

HAL

 

I like your updated image (awesome colour etc for something 1200 years old).

 

From this clearer image it does look like the headgear is actually hair

although I wonder why the beard is brown and the hair yellow ?

( maybe the crown at the top does indicate some kind of crown also)

 

I agree with what marat says above. I don't think it likely Jesus would have been

depicted in his time as he was just another Jo on the street (unimportant

to authorities etc).

[Hal.]

HAL

 

I like your updated image (awesome colour etc for something 1200 years old).

 

The best perception of the colour is if a person sees the book in person . A computer can only give an electronic representation .

 

From this clearer image it does look like the headgear is actually hair

although I wonder why the beard is brown and the hair yellow ?

( maybe the crown at the top does indicate some kind of crown also)

 

Blonde/yellow hair and a brown beard is not unusual as a combination especially in the world of 9th century Scandinavia and it's trading countries . Some Scandinavians were a right bunch of hooligans , supposedly , to speculate slightly , maybe the image depicts a view that might persuade a few hooligans to convert to a peaceful life .

 

I agree with what marat says above. I don't think it likely Jesus would have been

depicted in his time as he was just another Jo on the street (unimportant

to authorities etc).

 

It only takes one person to do a lot of artistic work over a few months , one person who is religiously minded who thinks Jesus is important could do hundreds of images in a short time , the question is whether or not they can be preserved over thousands of years .

[Marat]

The images we have of historical figures from that time are almost all from statues, busts, mosaics, or coins, as far as I know. I don't think any images from the first century have been passed down on crumbling papyrus to the present, or could have been, given the state of those written papyri that have survived. Roman images are especially good, since the Ancient Romans took it for granted that a portrait should really look like the person, rather than represent an idealized depiction. A coin with Cleopatra's head on it from around the beginning of the Roman period of control over Egypt shows in profile the most hideous crone imaginable, though perhaps the tip-of-your-nose-touching-your-lip look was considered attractive at the time.

 

But given that Christ was not sufficiently integrated into the power structure of his time to be able to afford or to have anyone bother to make a statue, bust, mosaic, or coin with his image on it, I would guess that the face of the historical Jesus is lost.

 

Incidentally, some cultures now depict him in surprising ways. In the capital of the Dominican Republic there is a massive statue of a black Jesus with furious, bulging eyes threatening the entire island. It's primary use seems to be as a scarecrow.

[Brainteaserfan]

It is also important to note how little accurate record-keeping there was at the time when Christ purportedly lived.

 

First, the ancient world did not operate with the same strict separation between myth and reality that our more scientific and objective culture has to use, so even serious historians like Herodotus and Thycidides invented speeches for their historical characters to move the story along, and every army would be said to be 'ten thousand men strong' with no attempt to determine its actual size. So stories about Christ have to be taken with a grain of salt and not treated as even having been intended to be accurate in the modern sense of the term.

 

Second, recording things was itself a very difficult process, given how expensive and rare papyrus and other forms of primitive 'paper' were. They generally had to be imported from just two places, Egypt and Phoenicia, where the right kind of reeds grew for making them, so unless you were willing to take the time and effort to carve something onto stone or paint it on a piece of broken pottery, you had to pay a lot to write something down. This is why so much of what was known was recorded in verse so that it could be preserved by people simply memorizing it, as was done with the works of Homer.

 

Third, as one poster has already pointed out, Christ was not all that special in his time, since ancient Judea was full of religious fanatics who button-holed people to harrangue them about some new theory, trying to establish their credibility by performing a few magic tricks. Many Jews regarded Christ as primarily announcing the return of the earthly rule of the House of David over Judea, so he was more a political reformer than a magician or saint, much less a son of God. Given all of these factors, Christ wouldn't have seemed sufficiently important during his lifetime to be worth depicting.

I disagree with your conclusion for your 1st point.  If I was writing a false book about a god that I wanted people to worship, I'd not exaggerate much on anything that could be confirmed, because if it was found out, my credibility would suffer and it would be vociferously voiced if I claimed something major.  I think that one of the most major miracles that Christ supposedly performed was raising Lazarus from the dead.  There were several witnesses in John 11 where John recounts the account of Lazarus. If there weren't witnesses, then I'd assume that there would be a mention of that in other historians writings. 

 

44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. 45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. 

 

So there were witnesses. 

 

 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

 

And he had been dead a while (and I don't find any evidence of dispute). 

 

 46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

 

So some didn't like what they had seen, (implied in the next verses also when you read the predictable reaction of the priests), BUT, they didn't dispute what had happened. 

 

So, if this whole event hadn't happened, or was a fake, there would doubtless be record of this in another historian of the time's writings. Since there isn't, then I would say that this did probably happen. 

 

This brings me to objection to your 3rd point (I'll come back to the 2nd). Give me an example of another person raising someone from the dead who had been dead >3 days and who had multiple witnesses. That is more than a magic trick IMO. That means that He was somebody special (although that doesn't alone mean that He was God.). I believe that it is likely that someone depicted Jesus. The reason IMO that we don't have any existing copies of His picture is that it was much harder to copy a picture than writing.  

 

Now to your 2nd point.  I don't see directly how this relates to your other points, it just seems to support my position in that if it was expensive, then only those well off people would have had it. If I was rich back then, then I would have not paid large sums for something that might hurt my reputation. Thus, those rich people would have had to see real evidence for Jesus being someone important.  Also, I'd be really careful about what went on those expensive sheets, and not introduce errors. (but that last sentence is what I would do, it's possible that they would have, but only if they could do so without ruining their reputation.) Lastly, those who were recording this must have had some sort of education because not everyone back then could read and write. IMO, the more of an education that you have, the less easily that you are duped. 

 

Oh, and one more thing. Just because other documents at the time were not accurate doesn't mean that that the Bible isn't accurate.

Sorry for not getting back sooner, I've been busy. 

Edited June 16, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Marat]

Two related themes are running together in this thread and are becoming mixed. One is whether there are any accurate images of the historical Jesus surviving today, which I think we can agree is probably unlikely, given the inability of Jesus and his supporters to access the resources necessary to preserve his image in lasting form by depicting him in a bust, a statue, a coin, or a mosaic.

 

The other theme is whether Jesus was really a historical figure or not. Generally, by historiographic principles, we would have to admit that determining today whether any specific individual less important than an Emperor, King, Senator, general, or famous inventor existed 2000 years ago is not something we can reliably achieve by the rules of evidence historians accept. In terms of an analogy with astronomy, saying whether any particular person among the countless itinerant magicians, faith healers, prophets, or religious preachers of the time actually existed is something we cannot claim now to 'see' with the type of 'telescopes' now available. We don't even know whether the Ancient Romans had invented the stirrup -- of which there must have been millions of exemplars if they had them -- given the paucity of our sources and the lack of archeological evidence, so how could we possibly still be certain that an object of much smaller today mass such as a specific person was a real individual, rather than a mythic, symbolic composite of a number of persons of similar type, such as Homer is now generally believed to have been. We don't even know for sure exactly where Hannibal's massive army was at any particular time en route to Italy, since even that gigantic object is 'too small' to see by the historiographic techniques available today.

 

There are plenty of magical and miraculous tales from Antiquity which supposedly had many witnesses, and it is likely that many people in that superstitious age really did think they saw miraculous things happening, even though these were in fact deceptions. The extremely cautious and accurate ancient historian and travel guide Pausanius reports his direct witness of miraculous events occurring in a Greek mystery temple, but we don't take him seriously on this point although we accept most of the rest of what he says. Even the Old Testament in Ex 7: 8-12 talks of Egyptian magicians being able to turn staffs into snakes in front of many witnesses, so we have to accept that if a miracle can be invented, then it is not all that difficult to make up witnesses of it to go along with the miracle. We even see that going on today in our own much more rational culture with people supposedly witnessing little people coming out of alien space ships at Roswell. Perhaps 2000 years from now these imaginary beings will be worshipped by a major world religion!

[Athena]

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

 

The shroud of Turin has not been proven a fake and many believe it is the image of Jesus.

 

Portraits painted on the walls of Pompii were preserved by the ash from the volcano. Of course these are not portraits of Jesus, and the condition that resulted in them in being preserved is unusual. The volcano erupted shortly after Jesus was reportedly crucified, and I believe it played a strong role in convincing people the end was near and that the expected savior had come. I am making this point, simply because it is possible for portraits of the period to exist.

 

However, I do believe the bible is largely mythology. I think the man could have existed, and in this case would have been an anarchist, and that the biblical stories of Jesus are a compilation of myths. You know, as much of the Greek writing is a combination of fact and myth.

[Edtharan]

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

 

The shroud of Turin has not been proven a fake and many believe it is the image of Jesus.

I can prove it is false really easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_mapping

 

This is the process where you take a 3d model and unwrap the mesh onto a 2D surface.

 

This same process occurs when you wrap a 3d object with a 2d surface, such as someone's face wrapped by a shroud.

 

The shroud of Turin shows a face as one would see it when looking at a 3D object (or an image of one such as a painting or photo) and not one one as it would appear mapped to a 2D shroud surface.

 

Thus, this proves it is a fake as the image on the shroud is completely wrong for it to have been created from it being wrapped over someone.

 

A good way to see this is computer image software. I regularly use this to construct images for computer graphics and thus I know the difference between them. You can see the effect here: http://tech-slop.serveit.org/wiki/index.php?title=Multi_Chan_Hax_Head (it is a tool I use for doing exactly what should have occurred on the shroud but as it doesn't it is proof the shroud is a fake).

[Hal.]

There is not only a scientific approach to this . Let's say that beyond nearly all doubt it was shown that the shroud of Turin is not as old as to place it at a time of Jesus Christ . These methods were scientific enough to satisfy all the scientists who need to be satisfied for it to become accepted as the explanation of age . This is God we are talking about . Why couldn't God just make it look that way , in a bizarre Godly logical way to truly test our faith ? If God made the universe I'd think a little radioactive carbon dating manipulation , for example , would be no problem .

[Realitycheck]

Plus, you must take into account that the mythology of Jesus took some time to organize and develop. With so many others doing similar things, there would be very little record that would stand out and since the Apostles records were never transcribed until near or after their deaths, it leaves lots of room for error. Just do yourself a favor and filter out anything which breaks any of the laws of physics. Thats why I stopped watching Star Trek years ago.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Edtharan]

This is God we are talking about . Why couldn't God just make it look that way , in a bizarre Godly logical way to truly test our faith ? If God made the universe I'd think a little radioactive carbon dating manipulation , for example , would be no problem .

This would make God immoral. First of all, the commandments that God gives states that one should not bear false witness (that is lie). If God were to lie to us by creating a shroud that appears younger than it should be, then this would be bearing false witness, something that is explicitly forbidden.

 

Now, there is the argument that God does not have to follow the ten commandments. However, the commandments are what is supposed to be moral right, and God is supposed to be moral perfect. So if the ten commandments are a moral code, then God would have to follow them.

 

Also, if one is to accept that God tests us by lying to us, then you have to consider anything could be such a test, including the bible. But this road leads to a religion that has to conclude that nothing about it could be true, and this would not work as a religion.

 

So either God does not lie to us to test us (there are ways of testing that do not require lies, so lying is not an essential component to testing) and thus the shroud is a fake, or God is immoral and therefore not the God of the bible (which also means the shroud is a fake).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How does the Biblical story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice Isaac fit into this?