Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Monday, March 27, 2006

    There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus existed

    This is a very interesting piece, and makes some important points for the fundamentalist extremists, in positions of power who believe that their "cause is just":

    No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

    See all recent "A Logical Voice" posts


    At 3/27/2006 04:24:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    Now the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the other hand...

    At 3/27/2006 04:57:00 pm, Blogger Truth Seeker said...

    Sssh, don't mention the great one among heathens.

    At 3/28/2006 10:16:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    On the other hand there is not a single carpenters son which we can independently prove the existence of. Indeed we cannot prove the existence of a single carpeneter from the same region. This does not constitute evidence of the abscence of carpenters. It does reflect the nature of the culture Jesus would have lived in. We would not expect there to be any independent evidence of the sort mentioned here.

    If there was such a man as Jesus he could well have been illiterate; we certainly wouldn't have expected him to spend much time writing as writing was not a particularly effective way of communicating. What one would expect would be the development of an oral culture around him, only later solidified into letters and accounts. Which is, erm - just what we have.

    Most serious historians don't bother trying to discuss the historicity of Jesus; it is known that there was a Jesus Cult early in the first millenia A.D. and this had major repurcussions. It isn't a long jump to make from the evidence we do have - and is certainly an easier explanation than a spontaneous delusion. Nonetheless is it is an abuse of the text available to make any concrete statements. The only people who do have an axe to grind, one way or the other.

    At 3/28/2006 02:18:00 pm, Blogger Truth Seeker said...

    Thanks for your comment robespiere, interesting.

    At 3/28/2006 03:16:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    The prophet may say one thing (no matter who that may be), but the religion (ie. power structure) set up after he (or she) has gone invariably turns ugly.

    At 3/28/2006 04:07:00 pm, Blogger Truth Seeker said...

    As you've probably noticed, I never go into the intricacies of any religion, I was once told that there are 2 things you shouldn't argue about, politics, and religion. I try my very best on most occasions not to argue about religion, but, as you can tell, haven't quite kept to the politics bit.

    At 3/29/2006 06:06:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I was always told it was fine to discuss either politics or religion, but always carefully and NEVER at the dinner table...

    At 3/30/2006 09:54:00 pm, Blogger Louis said...

    I'm not an expert on this but I thought I'd throw in some thoughts:

    "It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all."

    -J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
    So, only 2000 years after the event when it is at it's most difficult to prove (barring unearthing new evidence)!

    I was particurly interested in the following statement made in the article:

    "From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower."

    "Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the forth remove from Jesus."

    -Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

    "Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus."

    -Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

    I guess I need to refer to the book, but I assume this refers to the fact that Mark's Gospel is believed to be Peter's eye-witness account. The evidence:

    It notes details that an eye-witness would remember such as in the calming of the storm "Jesus was in the back of the boat with his head on a pillow". It also slips into aramaic at times, as if Peter can hear the exact words Jesus said e.g "Ephphthah", "Talitha Culm" and"Eloi, Eloi Lema Sabbachthani"
    (apologies for the spelling, this is from memory).

    It concentrates on what Jesus did, and is written in common greek - surely hardly a style that would normally become part of a holy book.

    Mark 14.51 describes a man in linen who runs away naked - traditionally believed to be Mark himself or why would he have included it>

    This is not hard evidence of course but something to think about. It is worth going back to the text yourself and seeing what you make of it.


    Post a Comment

    << Home