h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'first of all God has appeared to us through Jesus Christ, he doesnt appear so every generation can see him. '

Why not? I know you've explained in the past that it would be 'too easy' that way, but as it is it's way too hard. Seems as if God's cutting his nose off to spite his face.

' alot of people have died because they believe he was. why would people willilingly die to stand up for their belief that God exists and Jesus was his son?'

Because they were wrong? You can't argue that something is true because of the strength of someone's beleif in something. Why do Muslim's act as suicide bombers? Why to Jehova's Witnesses refuse vital medical treatment? Plenty of religous groups act on potetially dangerous beliefs and plenty have willingly been martyred for their beleifs even though their beliefs can't all be true. People will go a long way for what they hold to be true, but unfortunately that's no guarantee that they're right.

God only ever planned for Jesus to appear once.

even his disciples died because of their beliefs its seems to me that christians should be pityedi they are willing to put their trust in something that doesnt exist

Why did God only plan for Jesus to appear once? And is he completely above changing his plans when they aren't working?

It doesn't matter who died for a cause, they can still be wrong. The Christians and the Muslims can't both be right, and they've both died for their respective Gods. Plenty of religios groups have died for their faith, in fact, it seems to be a fairly common denominator among people who are really serious about their faith. People like to believe, want to believe, that is why there are so many cults and faiths through all kinds of alterntative medicine, through aliens, atlantis and even aryanism, all the way through to God. The fact that people beleive, or indeed risk their lives for their belief, does not say anything about the truth of their beleifs, but an awful lot about people in general.

how do we know his plans arent working?

we cant see into the future to know how hisplans will work out. right from the start God had known what wil happen and he had a plan which is being worked out. he is outside time and space

If his plans involve him having a special relationship with everyone then it isn't working. Religion is in crisis for all sorts of reasons, attendances are down (certainly is this country) and they are all at each other's throats and triggers.

You can't seriously use the 'it's all part of God's masterplan' argumemt to avoid questioning things, because ANYTHING could be part of God's masterplan. Maybe, just maybe, God had a masterplan and, actually, it's all gone wrong.

I think Nicky's point was this:
It's probably safe to say, on the evidence of contemporary accounts (eg. Josephus) that a man called Jesus did exist at the time the Bible says, that he was killed by the Romans who saw him as a threat, and that later people claimed he rose from the dead.
There are two possibilities: either he did rise from the dead, or someone made it up.
Three groups of people could have made it up: the Romans, the Jewish leaders, and the disciples.
Of the three, the disciples had the best motive. After all, Jesus had challenged the authority of both the Romans and the Jewish leaders - they would hardly want to encourage a cult worshipping him.
So let's say the disciples get together and say, "OK, let's pretend Jesus rose from the dead, and we'll become leaders of this new religion."
And it works pretty well. Thousands of people believe them and their authority is soon respected across the whole Mediterranean region. Unfortunately, they begin to run into trouble with the authorities. One by one, each of the disciples is brought up before the government and threatened with death if they don't denounce their religion as false.
Every single one of the disciples died because they refused to renounce Christianity.
Now, some people are prepared to die for what they believe is true. But is it really likely that anyone will die for what they know to be a lie? After all, if it was a lie that Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples, as we've just seen, would have known.
They believed with all their heart that Christianity was true, and they were eyewitnesses to it all. I can't think of any way they could have been tricked or mistaken into believing it is true, or any way they would have died because of what they knew was a lie.

You're confusing what is certain with what is claimed. Jesus certainly existed, and certainly was crucified, althought exactly why is perhaps less certain. Also, between the two poles of 'real' and 'made up' there is room for something that, despite being sincerely and honestly believed, is still completely false. It may well be that the disciples honesly believed that Jesus was not dead, but that doesn't mean it was true. It's also worth remembering that any source as old as the bible has been filtered through at least three different languages and a good two thousand years to get to the texts that we know and love.

>Jesus certainly existed<

Really? I've yet to see _any_ acceptable or reliable secular proof of the historicity of such an individual.

But do carry on, and I shall go back to mode...

Roman cencus and trial records, among other things. I don't think historians seriously doubt his existence, just the vexed question of whether he was the messiah, or just a very naughty boy.

Many historian do seriously doubt the existence of Jesus of the New Testament. Here's an online example: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
Scroll down to the section entitled: The Christian Era and the Last Great Revision of Judaism
30 C.E. to appx. 73 C.E

"One individual who fits the scanty evidence is a Yeishu ha Notzri, Jesus or Jesua, or Yeshua or Joshua ben Pantera or Pentera or Pandera or Pandira, who apparently had some influence with this movement, but may have been much more than that; we simply don't know. Indeed, there are even several first-century Christian references to this supposed miracle worker."

I've not seen any secular documents relating to trial records, other than the brief , disputed material in the Josephus manuscript.

The Roman census 'evidence' is, I believe, derived from non-secular sources, and is flawed to boot.

In what sense are roman cencus records derrived from non-secular sources? Do you mean 'people who have no religion'? Beacuse you might have difficulty finding many people like that in the 1st Century.
I've glanced over the section from the link you posted, and I can't see a word about Jesus, only a load of stuff about how the seven plagues of Egypt aren't in Egyptian records (which they are) and looking a lot like a text bent on quibbling with absolutely everything in the bible.

I'm not saying that Jesus was the miracle worker he is claimed to be, nor that he is the son of God, but I don't think you've done anything to challenge his existence.

In this context I think it's safe to assume we are talking about Christianity vs not.
The census evidence I'm familiar with is the bit in the New Testament, (non-secular), referencing the birth narrative regarding returning to the village of paternal nativity. The archeological, (secular) evidence used to support this notion actually refutes it. For example, a Roman document dating from about 104 C.E. reads something like:
"...who for any cause are residing outside of their provinces to return to their homes that they may carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments...".
The Biblical account says residents had to return to their place of birth. The Roman edict says they had to go their current residences, which were presumably close to where they worked.

Regarding the posted link, if you scroll down about 1/4 page you'll encounter the main portion of the article, which discusses the time period of from 30 C.E. to appx. 73 C.E

I agree with you, btw, about the non-divinity of the alleged Jesus of the New Testament. I merely go a bit further and suggest there are serious doubts such a person ever existed.

Another article specifically discusses this idea: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I find the first linked article more interesting, however, because it has more background and includes some interesting speculation on how the Christian meme became so popular.

What there are no examples of people dying for a lie?

What about all the people who in the last century with all the technological aids to education that our era afforded them thought that they should kill themselves before the new millenium. Or the people who thought they had to commit suicide to release their spirits to be picked up by aliens who were concealing themselves in the tail of a comet?

Look at America or India or Africa and and you can readily find people who beileve that they have seen magic and miracles preformed. Im not saying they havent Im just saying that if people could heal by faith Id bet a pound to a pinch of cat dropings that the NHS would be exploiting such a cheap medical procedure.

That some people have belief is not prooof that what they believe is real.

Neither is dying for that belief. If you go into the lion's den and survive it is becasue the bigG is watching over you but if the lions eat you then its because your belief was so strong. Not buying that argument, sorry!

As an Historical document the Bible does stand up in that it gets amny things right, but up against other documents it gets somethings wrong. the Bible is no more an historical document than "Slaughterhouse Five" is. Yes there ws a War in Europe between 1939 and 1945 the Germans did put some POWs in camps in Dresden and yes Dreseden ws heavily fire-bombed by the Allied forces, but the bits about aliens abducting one of the prisoners and taking him on a ride across galaxies and time....


The Bible is not the kind od proof you could use in a court of law...where was Jesus killed? On Golgotha or Calvary?

That's before we get to other religious accounts which have equal relevance interms of people *honetly* believeing them to be true and whose counter claims to be the word of the bigG seriously undermine what the Bible says.

one love

Alright then, if we're going to get all technical about stuff...

1) The bible IS a source, even if it's not a very good one. The old testament has proved quite useful for historians at finding stuff, like Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, which is real and apparently subject to some sort of liquifaction style disaster with unexplained flaming that scientists were able to explain. At the very least the bible is demonstrably true in the same way as the poems of Homer, or Robin Hood. Badger is right that it wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but it is good evidence to be assessed by historians.

2) Just because a christian, or anyone else, has an obvious bias, it doesn't necessarily mean they are lying, it just gives reason to challenge their version of events.

3) No it's not a chritian vs non-christian issue, Jesus is either a recognisable figure or he isn't. It is true that some accounts (notably school nativity plays) of Jesus' birth during a cencus period don't match up with reality, but that, again, doesn't fundamentally disprove his existence, especially coupled with records of his crucifiction and the recollections of pontious pilate who, I think, recalls a description of Jesus, as well as of the events of the trial.

4) What's 'slaughterhouse five'?

In response to 3) above:

While there may be no evidence disproving the New Testament Jesus, neither is there any 'certain' evidence to the contrary.

"Jesus certainly existed" is a debatable position. Jesus possibly existed is not.

There are no 'non-christian', or secular records of Jesus' crucifixtion.

If by "recollections of pontius pilate" you refer to W. P. Crozier’s 1928 book titled, “Letters of Pontius Pilate: Written During His Governorship of Judea to His Friend Seneca in Rome.” This work of pure fiction hardly qualifies as archeological evidence.

OK - I'm back just for a little while!

Regarding the historical evidence for Christ. I think some of the other posting a little extreme and dismissive to say there are no 'non-Christian sources'. Actually there are several interesting ones. In particular there are four major non-Christian contemporary historians containing passages relevant to Jesus, namely: Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus. Googling these will give you lots of stuff to read.

You can find people who read these historical sources skeptically and others who take them at face value as full confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. Keep in mind that Judea was a backwater for the Roman Empire in that time, for a poor carpenter’s son in Galilee there would be nothing that a non-Christian source would find the least bit interesting to record his actual existence for most of his life. That 'honour' would occur only over a short period of time when he became a ‘nuisance’ for the Jewish and Roman authorities and establishment. Given in their terms he was ‘dealt with’ what you would expect to find from those sources are a few dismissive comments on the person and his execution, and the follow-up activities of his disciples and followers. These sources will be rare to have survived 2000 years, when written they probably had an expected shelf life of just a few years before their authors expected the papyrus and velum would be re-used! Notwithstanding that that type of source material is exactly what you find.

When you take these into account with the Christian sources, mainly the Epistles and Gospels, but also may other contemporary sources, eg., the Didache and others - written in most part within the 'eyewitness' period. Most ‘open minded’ historians (those that do not argue from a position to either make the case for or against his person or nature) these days accept the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ. What is interesting is that these sources 'synch' very well together. It takes quite a leap to manufacture a conspiracy theory that these sources are not talking about a real person who did remarkable things. Such detail and consistency is unheard of for any other characters from that era.

As to what can be taken as fact and what as fiction, well, you have people who take a spectrum of views from literaly 100% to a ‘pick-and-mix’ kind of filtering out of anything that smacks of supernaturalism of the Jesus Seminar theologians.

As I said earlier in this string. IMO ultimately it's going to come down to your personal choice and taking a position, not just with your rational/positivist mind looking for verification level proof. You have to use your other faculties, of your whole being, to come to an answer. We come to know what is true and best for us with more than just a positivist outlook on life for a lot of subjective decisions we face.

This discussion will go on and on till you realize that that statement above, whilst not satisfying some who want things served up to them on a plate, is actually the reality of our human predicament.



******************


1/ Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c100),
A Jew and Roman citizen mentions Jesus twice, notably in the Testimonium Flavianum, found in Antiquities 18:3.3:

“About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”

Some scholars think this an interpolation, others not. Consensus (if any) is that something was written by Josephus from which this is based at very least. Additionally Josephus later, in chapter 20:9.1, refers to the trial and execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic.


2/ Pliny the Younger (c 63–113)
A Roman Governor wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 saying:

“Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."


3/ Gaius Suetonius (c. 69–140)
Wrote in 112 as part of his biography of Emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome".

The passage refers to riots among the Jews around the year 50, since that is about 20 years or so after Christ’s death the comment is merely indicative that Christians where active within the ‘eyewitness’ period. This is considered important by many historians.


4/ Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117)
Wrote on Christianity in 116 describing Nero's persecution of Christians c. 64, Tacitus stated that this group, originating from Judaea, derived its name from"

"Christus/Chrestus", who... "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate".

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman summarized the historical importance of this passage:

"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."

Alright, I'll back off from 'certain' but I'd like to point out that 'certain' evidence wouldn't prove the existence of a great many well known historical figures, so I'd have to go back and say it seems reasonably likely, given all the various accounts of his life from independent sources, that he existed. That is not to say that many of the sources made glaring mistakes in their reporting of the truth, or that mistranslation through various languages has given us a rather ropey version of the original text, or that selective editing by that oh-so-reliable crowd 'the medievil papacy' might just have trimmed a few inconvinient bits out. The bible is far from 100%, but it has been shown, even, amazingly, the old testament, to be of genuine use to historians of the period it describes.

Benjamin,

I think you are on the right tack. A total certainty of evidence is not there (did anyone expect it would be?), but the likelihood of the historicity of the story of Jesus is well supported, as well and perhaps better than any other historical figure in those times.

We have the documents that are very close and in some cases within the eye witness period. Those authors stood by them even though they clearly considered their immortal souls depended on the accuracy and truth of their accounts, they challenged the authority of Rome and in many cases their Jewish brethren in authority over them. Many chose to die rather than give up their belief testifying to their commitment.

For sure we can find circumstances in history when people have gone to their deaths for beliefs we now consider false. But not on this scale, and not facing such ingenuity of death and torture the Roman empire would make a spectacle over. By all account many thousands choose martyrdom - and we should not dismiss that without full consideration.

We find new material to support the Christian tradition within each generation it seems. The Nag Hammadi books, The early 'Gospel of Matthew' fragment, Dead Sea Scrolls, a very early copy of the Didache, even the 'Gospel of Judas' that received much news recently. Most of these found in the past 100 years or so. Some of these are not a genuine records of an eye witness tradition, rather written for a purpose to develop the early church in a different direction (eg., Gnosticism). But they support the documents we do consider as part of the genuine tradition (i.e., they where written to challenge the emerging mainstream tradition and where criticised as such by the 'church fathers' (Clement, Polycarp, etc.,) in documents we have). In that light we can see that one of the reason they exist today is that they where hidden away, for posterity to find. For example we knew of the existence of the Gospel of Judas for many centuries through commentary by the church fathers 1900-1800 years before an original copy was found. But this is all part of the puzzle that bit by bit we have pulled together. And by and large it is a consistent picture that emerges. It is one that continues to support the traditional Christian message.

Given the reality of the above by and large I agree that when we look at the historical documents of scripture and the other commentary we must approach them with a scholarly critique - not everything can be accepted.

My personal opinion (which is fairly mainstream but differs from some more literal theists) is that we must read scripture accepting that it was written by falliable humans, who wrote within the context and culture of their times. Sometimes in allegorical and non-literal format (eg., Genesis, Job, etc.) a technique popular in their day.

This does not mean scripture is not inspired, I believe it is. I see that in the pre-figuration that occurs throughout OT of what is coming in the NT - I have indicated some of these earlier on in this string. Its quite amazing in that light - far too much of a pattern underlying (for me) something very purposefull and full of meaning and relevance for us today.

This teleological purpose (for Christians) is ultimately derived in seeing these works in light of the meta-narrative of fulfillment of the good news in Christ (eg., we see the revelation to man moving towards a climax bringing historical man step by step along a journey of wisdom).

Different traditions will take certain positions on this. It's upto you to find what you feel able to accept, if any.

Good luck on your journey

Not a one of the "contemporary historians" cited above was actually contemporary. These references provide merely hearsay evidence.

Josephus Flavius birth was long after the alleged crucifixtion.
The 'Antiquities' was written in 93 C.E.
Josephus was a devout Jew, therefore it is hardly likely he would have referred to Jesus as the Messiah.
The only extant version of the 'Antiquities' comes via the hand of Eusebius, a bishop and an ecclesiastical church historian*
4th Century C.E. Commentators writing about Josephus earlier than Eusebius do not cite the passage.

Pliny the Younger was born in 62 C.E.
His letter about the Christians, (written about 100 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), can only prove that he got his information from Christians

Tacitus was born in 64 C.E.
The 'Annals' was written about 109 C.E.
No source was given for his material

Suetonius was born in 69 C.E.
His only known written works are dated well in excess of 100 years after the alleged crucifixion
It is disputeable that 'Chrestus' and 'Christ' are nominal cognates


*In Eusebuis' Praeparatio Evangelica, there is a chapter entitled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Decieved" In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity"

'Josephus was a devout Jew, therefore it is hardly likely he would have referred to Jesus as the Messiah.'

Don't tell me you've never heard of Paul the Evangilist?

Besides, we're not talking about whether external evidence proves thta Jesus is the Messiah, merely that he exixts.

The people who describe were born within four decades of the death of Christ, which isn't really that long a time (it's only forty years before I was born that world war two was two years in) and Tacitus especially might well have been able to get hold of roman records that haven't sruvived for as long as his writings.

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html