Archaeologists believe they've found cross of Jesus of Nazareth

[BainsBane]

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit: In my naivety, I actually saw this as a post about archaeology rather than religion. I clearly had no concept of the intensity of faith of so many members. If this were a thread about an excavation of a relic related to an Incan figure, say Tupac Amaru I, would there be such anger? The existence of a man called Jesus of Nazareth does not mean you have to be a Christian. That historians believe he existed does not mean you have to be a Christian. Muslims and Jews acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, but they don't see him as divine.

Archaeologists working at an ancient church in Turkey think they've unearthed a piece of the world's most famous cross, the one used to crucify Jesus.

They found a stone chest during excavation at a 1,350-year-old church, and the chest had a number of relics inside believed to be associated with the crucifixion, a historian at Turkey's Mimar Sinan University of Fine Arts tells the Hurriyet Daily News.

"We have found a holy thing in a chest," she says. "It is a piece of a cross," and they think it's from the cross.

The entire chest is now undergoing lab tests, reports NBC News. Researchers aren't sure who owned the chest, but it was probably a religious person of some importance, and that person apparently believed the cross relic was the real deal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/02/newser-jesus-cross-archaeologists/2611357/

Video from NBC: http://www.today.com/video/today/52651272#52651272

[Journeyman]

1. In my garage, I have Abraham Lincoln's axe . . .

The head's been replaced five times, and the handle 12, but it's definitely the axe used by Abraham Lincoln.

[hunter]

39. Bah. I have the actual axe he killed vampires with.

Them vampires, they don't mess with me.

[B Calm]

199. LOL

[msongs]

2. pieces of the "true cross" have been on sale by the millions for 2K years.. nt

[Greybnk48]

150. Over the centuries, enough splinters of "the cross" have been sold

to fill a lumber yard, along with pieces of the baby Jesus' foreskin, and tickets to enter "Heaven."

[anneboleyn]

175. Exactly. Thousands were sold/venerated in the Middle Ages

The idea of finding the "true cross" is very quaint indeed.

[sakabatou]

206. Yup

[warrior1]

3. Did a historical Jesus exist?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

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 came 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 about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

snip

[FreeState]

6. +1 - the OP's article is a stretch to say the least n/t

[BainsBane]

7. Yes, he existed

All historical accounts are hearsay. Whether the individual existed is a separate point from whether he is divine. Historians agree a man called Jesus of Nazareth lived and was crucified.

Do you know that all accounts of the lives of Cleopatra, Julius Cesar and Augustus Cesar are also hearsay?

[FreeState]

13. "Historians agree a man called Jesus of Nazareth lived and was crucified"

Um no, they don't. Some do, some don't.

[BainsBane]

17. The majority do

That's what consensus means.

While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus, the portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1][12][13][14]

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

[Warren DeMontague]

125. widespread scholarly agreement from biblical scholars- who study "bible history"

dare I say they may not be the most professionally disinterested group, when it comes to taking Biblical assertions as historical fact.

Most objective actual historians- of Judea, for instance, or Rome.. won't touch the subject with a 10 ft. pole (because they know better) ... still, the fact remains that the Jews don't have any record of the guy, the Romans didn't record any of it. It didn't register even as a blip, and some of these folks did keep good records.

Could there have been an itinerant rabbi from, say, Galilee who followed roughly that story pattern, one which dovetailed nicely with several other mystery and deicide/birth-death-rebirth cults which were popular at the time? Sure. But the earliest Christian records indicate that "Jesus" at the beginning may have been an entirely spiritual entity, only later given an objective historical existence, retroactively around 100-200 AD.

[warrior1]

16. You could google this

but the "jesus story" isn't original.

Here's a link to other prophets.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1678/claimed-similarities-between-jesus-christ-and-horus-and-other-gods

[BainsBane]

20. Here's the deal

You don't need to deny the historical existence of a man to reject the religion. You are citing something about Gods. That is not what historians have established. They have noted that a MAN (not a deity) named Jesus of Nazareth existed.

While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus, the portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1][12][13][14]

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

[warrior1]

25. they are also saying

that he's the son of god.

I'm not trying to be rude, but this is utter nonsense.

[BainsBane]

28. a separate point

Historians do NOT say Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. That is a matter of religious belief. Historians will study ways in which Christians PERCEIVE Jesus to be the son of God.

[warrior1]

29. it's still made up bs

[BainsBane]

32. So you think all history is made up BS?

[warrior1]

43. I think this story is

[Warren DeMontague]

134. History- and Science- as conveyed by the Bible are inherently suspect.

[BainsBane]

136. This is the problem with responses in this thread

1) History is not science, nor does it pretend to be. That is a good thing. 2) the Bible doesn't convey history. It is a religious text. Now, scholars of the historical Jesus likely use editions of the gospels (not subsequent translations in bibles) including those that never made it into the New Testament, among other sources to explore the life of Jesus of Nazareth. This is very far from my own field of training, so I am only speculating as to the sources they might use. Anyone of us, including you, can pick up some of these books, including the one by the Muslim scholar recently attacked on Fox, to see what sources they use. Plenty of scholars who are not Christian recognize that a man called Jesus of Nazareth lived. 3) This religious zeal--and that is precisely what it is--to deny the existence of a man called Jesus of Nazareth is absurd. There is documentary evidence accounting for his life as there is for any number of historical figures, including many thousands no one here knows nor cares about. 3) That does not mean Jesus was divine. Divinity cannot be proved historically, archaeologically, or scientifically. It is a function of faith alone. Rejecting Christianity does not require rejecting the fact the man ever lived.

Now, these archaeologists are obviously making claims that cannot be substantiated. They might be able to show this relic was thought to be the cross upon which Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, but they will not be able to claim, based on archaeological evidence alone, that is was. They can carbon date it but they have no way of knowing who died on that cross. Clearly they want to make a bundle off of asserting it is the cross that he died on. Or, more likely, the journalists have exaggerated the archaeologists claims to make a big story out of it.

All this nonsense about Jesus of Nazareth never existing is 1) counter factual, 2) detracts from the point of the article, and 3) a waste of energy. I fail to see why people are so invested in this particular point. Their atheism does not hinge on that fact. At least it shouldn't.

People here are obviously driven by their ideological views about Christianity, which should be something quite separate from the historical and archaeological record.

[Warren DeMontague]

145. A few things in reply to your well-thought out, cogent post.

Bear with me bc I'm on the ipad so my typing skills decline markedly.

1) no, but history- as in, the study of actual events that can be argued to actually, objectively have happened- is subject to the same sort of evidentiary challenges and logic that science is.

2) this is the problem- the ONLY "historical scholars" or "historians" who deal with any sort of objective historical existence of Jesus, ARE "Biblical scholars". This is because, like I said, there is no evidence for the guy outside the Bible. None. Zero. That there are large numbers of these "biblical scholars" studying topics of "biblical history" attests to the popularity of the topic and size of the target market, but that does not mean that objective historians take it seriously, nor do they need to, again, absent additional evidence. However, as far as "among other sources"- that's the thing. There ARE NO other sources. ALL sources on the "historical" life of "jesus" go back to the NT.

3) there's no zeal on my part. He may have existed, or the stories may be based on one or more real people. Thats not the point. The point is, ALL the "historical evidence" comes from the Bible. Your assertion about "a number of sources" is incorrect.

3) (you've got two threes! ) you are conflating two things, one being unbelief or a "need to prove he wasn't divine" (which I, personally, don't have any more than I "need to prove" Zeus isn't responsible for lightning) with, again, the very legitimate challenging of an objective, again, historical assertion which is not backed up by objective evidence, i.e. that "Jesus" existed.

If the assertion is going to be made on the objective, non-faith based plane, then it needs to compete on the same evidentiary rules that other historical assertions would be subject to. No more, no less.


You are assuming that this is about Atheists trying to "score points" or such, but its not. It is about subjecting a historical assertion which is often granted special pleading status, to the same rigors any other assertion would be subject to. "Nonsense"? We are talking about events alleged to have happened 2,000 yrs ago. What is nonsense is to assert factual knowledge either way, given the clear lack of objective evidence.

[BainsBane]

158. How do you know there is no evidence outside from the Bible?

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

That's a bold claim, and I have to wonder if you've done the reading necessary to make that claim. Part of it is clearly false. There are gospels, such as the gospel of Thomas, that never became part of the New Testament. There are a number of others. At a certain point, the Church settled on a certain set of gospels and versions of them to include in the Bible. Various translations (and mis-translations) and editions of the Bible have changed dramatically how people in the US understand the life of Jesus Christ as a religious figure.

Historians do not use the Bible. They will use the earliest editions of the gospels they can find, in their original languages. Teaching in a religious studies section does not mean those scholars are illegitimate. In some universities, that section might be part of a department of Near Eastern Studies and/or Classics. To imagine the goal of such scholarship is proselytizing is to miss the point, not unlike the Fox news anchor did with Reza Aslan. What purpose do you think a scholar, who happens to be Muslim, would have for fabricating the existence of Jesus? There is a difference between a biblical scholar and a scholar of the Near East of that era. I have worked with both. I've worked with a scholar who has devoted his life to the study of Paul. Paul is one source for the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Now this is not to say the Gospel of Paul or any other is factually true in all or most regards. It is an account. It is the perception of the author, as is the case of EVERY historical document. Historians never take documents on face value. Much of what historians do now is to focus on perception, what the biases inherent in documents tell us about cultural ideas of a given time period. One early article that established this approach in Latin American history is: Patricia Seed, "Failing to Marvel: Atahualpa's Encounter with the Word" (1991), which you can read online free if you register. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2503763?uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102515324111

As I said, this is far from my educational background. So let's compare it to what I do know. I have probed 19th century police and judicial records to learn about arrest and punishment of slaves. They become visible only through the lens of those in power. That is the case for all of social history. Very few slaves or ordinary people not in political power can be traced from birth to death in societies without high levels of literacy. I've written about a slave named Seraphim who was beaten so badly by police authorities that his master petitioned the courts to stop the beatings. I only know of Seaphim though a law journal and documents from Brazil's Council of State. Other slaves I know of--like several who refused to obey the police and invoked the status of their master as a reason why--I know of only through a single tattered manuscript, often riddled with holes. No one has ever questioned me about whether those slaves existed. Questions that arise are about interpretation.

Why should the life of a carpenter from Nazareth be so much more contested? His life becomes controversial only because of the attributes of divinity attributed to him by Christians. To pretend reactions here are not about that rather than simple historical proof of the existence of an individual misses the outrage to my OP.

People have unrealistic expectations of what history can actually document. A history book is not a court of law, nor is it subject to scientific proof. Having 13 plus accounts of someone's life is tremendous level of historical evidence.
Clearly, studying a period 2000 years ago is more challenging than the 19th century. Documentary evidence is scarcer, records long ago deteriorated, etc... Someone below compares evidence for the life of Jesus with Pontius Pilatus. He clearly knows FAR more about the period than I do. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3395089

You may not personally feel a zeal to deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but such zeal is the only explanation I can fathom as to why so many people have reacted so negatively to this little story. I simply don't get it. Clearly most of these are people who no knowledge of the discipline of history, historical documentation, or analysis. Comments bemoaning a "lack of scientific proof" demonstrate that. Many of the responses here are clearly a knee-jerk ideological rejection of anything related to Christianity. I have not read all the comments, nor do I plan to do so. I had not realized posting a Yahoo article of mild interest to me would require donning a Kevlar vest.

[Warren DeMontague]

183. If ALL the evidence is coming from Christianity, which incorporated this narrative into its

collective mythos certainly by the yr. 100 or 200 at the latest, then why is that?

(If you have non-Christian historical sources for evidence available that I haven't seen, of course, I'm interested to hear about it)

And there are the deep similarities between Christianity- not just Christianity, but the story of Jesus- and other mystery/divinity cults, like that of Mithras, which predated Jesus by 500 years or so. Why, again?

I don't have a dog in this hunt, other than to say that the evidence simply isn't there, outside of "Christian" sources. Now, lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, of course.. however it is worth noting that other historical events involving the Romans or Judea have been corroborated by many sources independently. By most accounts, Jesus was a "troublemaker" who caught the attention both of the Roman and Judean authorities. Yet, no mention, anywhere. Nothing about temple disturbances, or the rest of it.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. DOES mean that the creation of the narrative later on is a distinct possibility.

I recommend "The Jesus Puzzle" as one resource. But, like I said, I don't have a dog in this hunt and I don't hold a great expectation of anything being "proven" one way or another at this point in time. (If the Romans were crucifying people regularly, however, one would think there would be a LOT of cross bits out there, only a very small amount of which would have come from that particular cross, right?)

Lastly, it's DU. If you don't bring your kevlar vest even into the most innocuous of threads, you're just not using your imagination enough.

[BainsBane]

191. GlassUnion cited Josephus

a Jewish philosopher and historian as a source. That many of the gospels came to be used as Christian texts doesn't make them more or less reliable as accounts. I don't even understand that logic. What interest would Christians have in fabricating a person to base a religion on? One might attribute accounts of the Resurrection to magic mushrooms, but I think it highly unlikely so many people invented the very existence of man from full cloth.

True about the vest. Turns out I need a full set of armor for MIRT.

[Warren DeMontague]

193. Josephus is invariably referenced because it's the ONLY one. And considered suspect.

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

(yes, an obviously biased blog here-)

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-josephus-so-called-testimonium.html

Here's an interesting link: Note how (non-Biblical) historical experts kind of leave the whole mess alone, i.e. "There are discrepancies in the perspectives of Bellum and Antiquitates and other noted biases"?

...Because they don't even want to get into it, instead focusing on the obviously non-forged important historical work of the guy.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/josephus/g/Josephus.htm

Or this:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=2&nav=messages&webtag=ab-ancienthist&tid=1175

I failed to mention Josephus much debated passage in Antiquities, as well as his less controversial references to John the Baptist and
James, the brother of the "so-called Christ", condemned to death by the high Priest Ananas (one of several using that name). Josephus seems to genuinely regret the execution of James. It would follow that he had similar sympathies with the character, if not the teachings, of Jesus. Of course we will probably never know since
Eusebius appears to have tampered with the one passage where Josephus may have focused on Christ directly. He has Josephus describing Jesus with reverence as if he WERE in fact the Christ, and believing implicitly in Jesus' wonder-working, as well as the rising of Christ
three days after his crucifixion...all of course totally out of character for Josephus, a Jew of the priestly caste.

Short answer, it clearly was altered. The idea of this great Jewish historian suddenly doing a 180 and speaking in the voice of a converted Christian is flat-out ludicrous. So the narrative on Jesus from Josephus can't be trusted 100%- question is, how much of it can be trusted.

Again, there is debate on how much is forged and how much authentic or original. Interestingly enough, there seems to be -and this is borne out in the book I recommend, The Jesus Puzzle- far more historical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist. (You'll note, too, the book isn't positing an answer so much as asking the question if Jesus -the historical biblical figure we've been taught to accept more or less at face value- existed. It's a legitimate question.)

So- why? You're assuming a linear progression of "small group of people had this experience and then set out to relay it in a direct fashion which continued more or less uninterrupted through the course of several centuries of upheaval". Again, there's a good deal of evidence that "mystery cults" similar to early Christianity- which may have been a very different animal than later Christianity- were very popular in that area around the time Jesus was said to have existed. Early Christian writings are all over the map as far as the physical existence of Jesus versus his being a purely spiritual "savior" deity or entity.

And yes there obviously were "Christians" who were persecuted in the Roman Empire, whether or not there was an actual historical Christ. But the records from these early Christians for the most part date back, again, to years 100-200 AD. And if they're coming from people who were converted instead of people who were actually there, is it so difficult to imagine a process whereby a spiritual savior deity embodying Mithras or Osiris ideas of deicide and resurrection could be changed- or merged with a historical life, like JTB- and turned retroactively into a literal birth-death-rebirth tale?

I'd recommend the book. Don't really have the energy to dive intellectually into the discussion much more than this right now, but it's an interesting topic. And I'm not interested in "winning" or "proving" but I find the truth; and attempts to uncover it; endlessly fascinating.

As for MIRT, I'll ask inside.

[BainsBane]

194. Thanks for the info

Truth be told, my interest in this subject is pretty limited. You've clearly read more about it than I have.

As for your last comment, probably best to avoid further inflaming a certain person inside.

[idwiyo]

139. Those will be biblical scholars. :)

[Marr]

31. I don't think you understand the word "hearsay".

The lives of Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, and Augustus Caesar are extremely well documented, historically. Their existence is provable with reams of direct evidence in the form of contemporary writings and relics of various sorts, provably connected to said individuals.

There are hundreds of thousands of otherwise unremarkable Roman individuals whose existence is thoroughly provable with evidence as well. That's not the case with Jesus.

[BainsBane]

35. What do you think the gospels are?

They are accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. I have a PhD in history. There is far more evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth than for the enslaved Brazilians I study.

You are simply wrong about the evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth. It is not necessary to deny the existence of the person in order to reject Christianity as a faith. They are separate issues.

While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus, the portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.

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

[Marr]

47. I'm not wrong, and the gospels are hearsay.

They were written some 40 years after his death, at best. I can hardly think of a better example of hearsay.

I'm not saying I don't think a religious zealot named Jesus existed and had a following there at that time. I'd actually have a harder time believing that so much grew out of not so much as a seed of fact. I'm just saying there's no real, direct historical evidence to back it up.

[RC]

52. 70 years, not 40 years.

The earliest writing about Jesus trace back to 70 AD. None of the events that supposedly happened, such as Palm Sunday, are correlated in any contemporary writings of the day.

[Marr]

57. Jesus supposedly died in 33AD though, I believe. /nt

[Bake]

135. RC apparently isn't a mathematician, either.

40 or so is the operative number.



Bake

[BainsBane]

159. There is a difference between documenting miracles

and the simple existence of a human being.

[REP]

60. The gospels contradict each other

Take, for example, the birth of Jesus. Big event, right? Mentioned in how many gospels? Two of the four, and Luke and Matthew don't agree with each other. No one takes these as historical accounts.

[dballance]

115. For a historian you certainly chose a poor reference. Wikipedia?

I find your claims to be somewhat difficult to believe when you use Wikipedia as a source for your arguments. Any reputable historian on the subject of the New Testament has many sources to choose from. None of them are free-form, user-written "encyclopedias" like Wikipedia. I can go to the Wikipedia page to which you linked and write whatever I wish. It doesn't make it true nor accurate.

[kestrel91316]

182. The bible is not a historical document. It contains some real history mixed up

with a huge helping of mythology and pseudoscientific gobbledegook and hate speech and blatant lies. It also contains great wisdom.

NO legitimate historian uses the bible as an historical reference. They'd get laughed out of whatever university they work for.

[Xithras]

100. No serious historian would say that a man named "Jesus" existed.

If he did in fact exist, his name would have been Yeshua (the predecessor to the modern Joshua).

But I guess "Joshua Christ" just doesn't have the same ring. In fact, since the word "Christ" was given to him by the Greeks, his friends and followers probably would have known by something similar to the Hebrew "Yeshua Ha'Notzri" (Ha'Notzri = 'of Nazareth')

[pnwmom]

133. Virtually all serious historical scholars of that era agree that a historical Jesus existed.

Of course, Jesus is the name we use in English.

From Wikipedia:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.[21][22] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.[7][23] Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[24][e] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.[26][27]

[Xithras]

147. I was being snarky

I actually believe that a historical Jesus (Yeshua) existed, but I ascribe to the theory that Yeshua Ha Notzri and Yeshua Barabbas (which, incidentally, translate to "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Jesus, Son of the Father" respectively) were actually the same person, and that the real Yeshua was was both a militant revolutionary and a religious leader. The story of the crowd choosing Barabbas over Christ was probably originally meant as a parable, with the crowd having to choose between a "powerful" militant leader and one who was preaching a peaceful life. It represents the failure of his peaceful ministry and the victory of war over peace.

I beleve that Christianities founders, like Peter, later chose to preach his messages of peace and love, while choosing not to discuss his militant side. In fact, this may also explain why so little non-Biblical evidence of him exists. If the real-life Yeshua didn't match the Yeshua of the Bible, it would have been in the interests of the churches to erase that evidence, and the Christian churches had nearly 2000 years to do so.

[BainsBane]

168. I see

So when I talk to you about Brazilian slavery, I'll be sure to write in Portuguese. If I said slave instead of escravo, I couldn't possibly be a serious historian. Or if I said abolition instead of the Lei Aurea, I couldn't possibly be a serious historian. Deus me livre.

[NuclearDem]

113. Yes, they agree someone like that existed.

And he was likely crucified as an insurgent against the Romans, as were a lot of people.

The Jesus of the Gospels most certainly did not. That was a highly mythologized account of the real man. You don't seem to disagree on that though, and you're right, a man that was later mythologized as Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God did likely exist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. Julius Caesar wrote 'De Bello Gallico' himself

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

So, not hearsay.

[boomer55]

169. Take a few minutes then get back to us

http://www.pocm.info/

[intaglio]

195. Wrong

nobody called Jesus lived at that time.

No-one was identified as being from Nazareth

Historians, as a class, favour the idea that the figure of Jesus was based round a single person but significant minority doubt this. They will also admit that all, or nearly all, the biographical details about the figure known as Jesus are false or accretions from other mythologies. They will also agree that most, if not all, of the teachings attributed this shadowy figure were common currency both amongst the Judeans and their neighbours.

All historians agree that if a foundation figure existed he made very little impression at the time.

The earliest parts of the Bible (some of the Pauline letters) do not identify the Jesus figure as any more than an ideal.

The man now known as Paul, who must have been alive during at least part of the ministry, never met, saw or heard this supposedly famous teacher.

Yes a figure upon whom the tales of Jesus have been fixed may have existed - but equally there was a figure that Conan Doyle developed into Sherlock Holmes. In that last case thousands believed in Sherlock Holmes sufficiently strongly to write to him for assistance.

[BainsBane]

196. No one was from Nazareth?

No one whose names translates to Jesus in English lived back then. Do you have any concept of how preposterous that sounds?

While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus, the portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1][12][13][14]

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



^ a b c d e f The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 page 5
^ a b c d e Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN 0802863531 pages 1-2
^ a b c d Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
^ a b Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford Univ Press pages ix-xi
^ Jesus Remembered Volume 1, by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 125-127
^ Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2, chapters 13, 15
^ a b c d e f g The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449 pages 9-13
^ a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pages 19-23
^ a b The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener (Apr 13, 2012) ISBN 0802868886 page 163
^ a b Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship by Marcus J. Borg (Aug 1, 1994) ISBN 1563380943 pages 4-6
^ a b John P. Meier "Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (Jul 15, 2006) ISBN 1575061007 page 124 "Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more."
^ a b In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
^ a b c Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
^ "Historical Jesus, Quest of the." Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. pp 775
^ a b c d e f g h i j k The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
^ a b c d e f g The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1 by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (Feb 20, 2006) ISBN 0521812399 page 23
^ a b Images of Christ (Academic Paperback) by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (Dec 19, 2004) ISBN 0567044602 T&T Clark page 74
^ a b c d e f g h i j Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazereth by Michael James McClymond (Mar 22, 2004) ISBN 0802826806 pages 16-22
^ a b Amy-Jill Levine in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 page 4: ""There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate"
^ a b Allison, Dale (2009-02). The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8028-6262-4. Retrieved 2011-Jan-09. "We wield our criteria to get what we want."
^ a b John P. Meier (26 May 2009). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Law and Love. Yale University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5. Retrieved 27 August 2010.
^ a b Akenson, Donald (1998). Surpassing wonder: the invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. pp. 539–555. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1. Retrieved 2011-Jan-08. "...The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice..."
^ a b c d Clive Marsh, "Diverse Agendas at Work in the Jesus Quest" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus by Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter (Jan 12, 2011) ISBN 9004163727 pages 986-1002
^ a b Clive Marsh "Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Perspective" in Biblical Interpretation Journal Volume 5, Number 4, 1997 , pp. 403-437(35)
^ Georgi, Dieter (1986). The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
Georgi, Dieter (1991). Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
^ a b c d e The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pages 1-6
^ a b c d e f g h i Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 100-120
^ Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Jun 1998) ISBN 9004111425 page 27
^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pages 142-143
^ John, Jesus, and History Volume 1 by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (Nov 14, 2007) ISBN 1589832930 page 131
^ Jesus and His World by Craig A. Evans (Feb 8, 2013) ISBN 0664239323 pages 4-5 states that no major historian or New Testament scholar follows the minimalist approaches such as those of Robert M. Price
^ a b c d Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pages 13-18
^ Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 36-37
^ John's Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation: Bk. 1 by Sean P. Kealy (Dec 2002) ISBN 077346980X page 426
^ Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters by Dale C. Allison Jr. (Aug 18, 2005) ISBN 0567029107 pages 1-4
^ The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology by Alan Richardson 1983 ISBN 0664227481 pages 215-216
^ The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q by Brian Han Gregg (Jun 30, 2006) ISBN 3161487508 page 29
^ Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 77-78
^ a b Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 28-29
^ a b John, Jesus, and History, Volume 1: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (Nov 14, 2007) ISBN 1589832930 page 127
^ a b Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 pages 2-6
^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 11
^ The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449 page 77
^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
^ Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
^ a b c Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
^ a b Jesus of Nazareth by Paul Verhoeven (Apr 6, 2010) ISBN 1583229051 page 39
^ Fredriksen, Paula (1988). From Jesus to Christ ISBN 0-300-04864-5 pp. ix-xii
^ Sanders, E.P. (1987). Jesus and Judaism, Fortress Press ISBN 0-8006-2061-5 pp. 1-9
^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, v. 1, ch. 11; also H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 251
^ a b c d Chronicle of Jewish History from the Patriarchs to the 21st Century by Sol Scharfstein and Dorcas Gelabert (Oct 1997) ISBN 0881256064 page 85
^ "Pharisees." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
^ A Guide Through the New Testament by Celia B. Sinclair (May 1, 1994) ISBN 0664254845 page 21
^ Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism by Jonathan Klawans (Oct 12, 2012) ISBN 0199928614 Oxford Univ Press page 11
^ Resurrection in the New Testament ISBN 9042912146 by R Bieringer and V Koperski (Nov 1, 2002) page 112
^ Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism by Lawrence H. Schiffman (Nov 1997) ISBN 088125455X pages 269-270
^ Jonathan L. Reed, "Archaeological contributions to the study of Jesus and the Gospels" in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton Univ Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 40-47
^ Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: a re-examination of the evidence by Jonathan L. Reed 2002 ISBN 1-56338-394-2 pages xi-xii
^ a b Craig A. Evans (Mar 26, 2012). The Archaeological Evidence For Jesus. The Huffington Post.
^ a b "Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective" by James H. Charlesworth in Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN 0-8028-4880-X pages 11-15
^ a b c d What are they saying about the historical Jesus? by David B. Gowler 2007 ISBN 0-8091-4445-X page 102
^ Craig A. Evans (Mar 16, 2012). Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 0-664-23413-5.
^ a b Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: a re-examination of the evidence by Jonathan L. Reed 2002 ISBN 1-56338-394-2 page 18
^ Historical Dictionary of Jesus by Daniel J. Harrington 2010 ISBN 0-8108-7667-1 page 32
^ Studying the historical Jesus: evaluations of the state of current research by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans 1998 ISBN 90-04-11142-5 page 465
^ "Jesus and Capernaum: Archeological and Gospel Stratigraohy" in Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: a re-examination of the evidence' by Jonathan L. Reed 2002 ISBN 1-56338-394-2 page 139-156
^ Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN 0-8028-4880-X page 127
^ Who Was Jesus? by Paul Copan and Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-664-22462-8 page 187
^ a b Jesus: the complete guide by Leslie Houlden 2006 082648011X pages 63-100
^ Teaching Christianity: a world religions approach by Clive Erricker 1987 ISBN 0-7188-2634-5 page 44
^ Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (InterVarsity Press, 1992), page 442
^ a b James Barr, Which language did Jesus speak, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1970; 53(1) pages 9–29 [1]
^ a b Handbook to exegesis of the New Testament by Stanley E. Porter 1997 ISBN 90-04-09921-2 pages 110–112
^ Discovering the language of Jesus by Douglas Hamp 2005 ISBN 1-59751-017-3 page 3-4
^ Jesus in history and myth by R. Joseph Hoffmann 1986 ISBN 0-87975-332-3 page 98
^ James Barr's review article Which language did Jesus speak (referenced above) states that Aramaic has the widest support among scholars.
^ a b c d e Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pages 313-315
^ a b Amy-Jill Levine in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton Univ Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 page 10
^ Lawrence Schiffman, "Was there a Galilean Halakha?" in Galilee in Late Antiquity (Harvard University Press 1994), pages 143-156
^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Galilee: Characteristics of Galileans: "But it is for their faulty pronunciation that the Galileans are especially remembered: 'ayin and alef, and the gutturals generally, were confounded, no distinction being made between words like '"amar" (= "ḥamor," uss), "ḥamar" (wine), "'amar" (a garment), "emar" (a lamb: 'Er. 53b); therefore Galileans were not permitted to act as readers of public prayers (Meg. 24b)."
^ Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: a re-examination of the evidence, Jonathan L. Reed, (Continuum, 2002), page 55
^ Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship by Shawn Kelley 2002 ISBN 0-415-28373-6 pages 70-73
^ The Oxford companion to the Bible 1993 ISBN 0-19-504645-5 page 41
^ Making Sense of the New Testament by Craig L. Blomberg 2004 ISBN 0-8010-2747-0 pages 3-4
^ Pontius Pilate: portraits of a Roman governor by Warren Carter 2003 ISBN 0-8146-5113-5 pages 6-9
^ The forging of races: race and scripture in the Protestant Atlantic world by Colin Kidd 2006 ISBN 0-521-79324-6 pages 44-45
^ The forging of races: race and scripture in the Protestant Atlantic world by Colin Kidd 2006 ISBN 0-521-79324-6 page 18
^ The likeness of the king: a prehistory of portraiture in late medieval France by Stephen Perkinson 2009 ISBN 0-226-65879-1 page 30
^ Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson, 2008, ISBN 0-8254-7802-2,page 47
^ Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1-59333-313-7 page 68
^ Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1-59333-313-7 pages 74-77
^ Jesus the Jew: a historian's reading of the Gospels by Jeza Vermes 1983 ISBN SBN: 0961614846 page 21
^ Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4
^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. “Contexts,” p 1-24.
^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
^ Sanders terms it a "minor village." Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 104
^ Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence by Jonathan L. Reed (May 1, 2002) ISBN 1563383942 pages 131-134
^ Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence by Jonathan L. Reed (May 1, 2002) ISBN 1563383942 pages 114-117
^ a b c The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Q-Z) by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Jan 31, 1995) ISBN 0802837840 page 50
^ The Gospel of Mark by John R. Donahue and Daniel J., S.J. Harrington (Jan 1, 2002) ISBN 0814659659 pages 60-61
^ Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q by Richard A. Horsley and Jonathan A. Draper (Nov 1, 1999) ISBN 1563382725 page 127
^ Theissen and Merz 1998, p. 354 (for example, Mark 1.39, 2.25, 12.10; Matt. 12.5, 19.4, 21.16; Luke 4.16; and John 7.15)
^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "What do we really know about Jesus" p. 527-534.
^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 147
^ In the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus edited by Markus Bockmuehl (Dec 3, 2001) ISBN 0521796784 page 14
^ In the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus edited by Markus Bockmuehl (Dec 3, 2001) ISBN 0521796784 page 21
^ John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus 1991 ISBN 0300140185 page 278
^ a b Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
^ Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 211-214
^ a b A Brief Introduction to the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman 2008 ISBN 0-19-536934-3 page 136
^ a b John P. Meier "How do we decide what comes from Jesus" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 pages 126-128 and 132-136
^ Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus
^ John P. Meier "How do we decide what comes from Jesus" in

[intaglio]

198. Not at the time

There was a small farmstead at the time, I believe 5 buildings have been found, but not the city described in the bible and it is doubtful if person of the Jewish faith lived there as it was a burial site - in other words it may have been a farm worked by slaves.

The earliest physical documents we have AFAIK refer to the title Nazarene (not Nazarite which was diferent ) describing persons who followed all of the restrictions on clothing, food, hair cutting, contact with the other sex - Sampson was a Nazarene.

In any event the addition of Nazareth to the titles of the Saviour was an attempt to shoehorn him into even more prophecies in the same way as the improbable peregrinations of Joseph and Mary prior to the birth.

[BainsBane]

201. Interesting.

I didn't know that.

[whttevrr]

14. You sir/madam, much like Leopold "Butters" Stotch...

Are a heretic.

[NuclearDem]

118. Heresy against the church, Butters? Well that does it!

You are grounded, mister!

[former9thward]

36. The same could be said of most historical figures of the ancient era.

Did a historical Alexander the Great exist? In terms of Jesus he was mentioned by Roman historians later in the 1st century. Also it was not in the interest of historians/writers to mention Jesus or the Christians. The Roman empire did not have free speech. Only a few people were literate enough to write and they were employed by the empire. Christians were considered rebels against Rome so it was not in the interest of any to write about them.

[Marr]

55. There are multiple independent accounts of the existence of Alexander

by contemporaries in different locations, from Greece to Egypt to India (and many points in between), that coincide with the historical record and direct physical evidence.

Alexander's existence is very well supported by historical evidence. Jesus' is not. That doesn't mean there was no Jesus, of course-- it just means there's no real historical evidence to support it.

I actually think the comparison is an unfair one to Jesus supporters. I mean, one was a king and conqueror, the other an itinerant preacher (supposedly), which is about one step above hobo as far as historical documentation goes. I wouldn't expect the two to have any sort of comparable historical footprint.

[former9thward]

97. Please name a physical location where I can see an account of Alexander.

Written by a contemporary.

[Marr]

117. The Astronomical Diary in the British Museum.

It contains a description of the Battle of Gaugamela, which was also described in detail by other sources-- including men who served with Alexander.

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t40.html

[former9thward]

148. Thanks, that was interesting.

We have one contemporary mention of probably the most famous person in the ancient world. Which sorta makes the point about the lack of contemporary writing about Jesus. People who wish to deny Jesus ever existed (I am not saying you) try and project the current news world and literacy rates onto the ancient world. Doesn't work that way.

[Marr]

149. You bet.

Yeah, I've never thought the lack of documented, contemporary accounts of Jesus was very significant, personally. He would've been a very obscure figure on the world stage while he was alive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

167. That doesn't mean it's the only one

There is also, for instance, an letter written to Alexander by Isocrates: http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780292797376

or a letter from him: http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/CSAD/Images/100/Image142.html

[Bryn]

68. The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold

I read this book by Acharya S. She's mythologist, archaeologist, studied Bible in original languages .. Greek & Hebrew & Armenian <----not sure if spelt right. Very interesting. This is what set me free..freedom from Christianity.

[socialist_n_TN]

114. I think you mean ....

Aramaic. That was the common patois of that time in Judea.

[hunter]

72. I see a great debate in the future about the existence of John Lennon...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon

Was he or was he not the whole cloth creation of the great twentieth century corporations?

[pnwmom]

132. "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed"

This isn't a religious claim. This is really whether the man named Jesus was an actual person.

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

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.[21][22] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.[7][23] Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[24][e] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.[26][27]

[warrprayer]

4. unless I am mistaken

... there is no historical evidence that Jesus of Nazereth existed.

[BainsBane]

8. You are mistaken

[FiveGoodMen]

46. Show your work.

[WilliamPitt]

98. ....

http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375473170&sr=1-1

[FiveGoodMen]

108. .....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth-by-reza-aslan/2013/08/02/029f6088-f087-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html

...Aslan is more a storyteller here than a historian. Throughout “Zealot,” he refers to selected New Testament passages as “preposterous,” “fanciful,” “patently fictitious” and “obviously contrived.” But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the only ones spinning Jesuses out of fertile imaginations.

...

Aslan’s accounts of efforts by early Christians to diminish the status of John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus are compelling. So is his reading of the iconic Good Samaritan story as a critique of priests and the Temple cult. Moreover, Aslan’s overarching argument — that the early Christian movement depoliticized Jesus to make nice with Rome after a failed Jewish revolt left Jerusalem in ruins — makes a lot of sense, assuming that Jesus really was a failed revolutionary. But how do we know that?

Unfortunately, there isn’t much new here other than Aslan’s slick writing and cinematic sensibilities. In a now-notorious Fox News interview that propelled the book toward the top of the bestseller lists, Lauren Green questioned whether a Muslim should be writing about Christianity’s founder. But the real problem is that Aslan, like thousands of “historical Jesus” experts before him, refuses to say “I don’t know” with anything near the frequency required for the task. He, too, purports to be an intrepid archaeologist for historical truth, excavating the “real” Jesus out of the “propagandistic legend” that has grown up around him. But he, too, remakes Jesus in his own image.

...

In short, Jesus was a frustrated Muhammad — a man who, like Islam’s founder, came to revolutionize the world by force yet, unlike Muhammad, failed. This makes for a good read. It might even make for a good movie. Just don’t tell me it’s true

[WilliamPitt]

109. I was not trying to prove the divinity of the man.

My understanding was that you sought proof of historical evidence that a guy named Jesus existed. Nothing you've posted above refutes the simple point: he was there. That other people invested him with divinity is a whole 'nother kettle of crawfish.

[FiveGoodMen]

110. You pointed to a book that claims he existed

and I pointed to criticism that suggests the author was just inventing things.

[WilliamPitt]

111. That article said the author of the book was inventing aspects of the man,

not the man himself.

[FiveGoodMen]

112. If he's inventing any part of it...

...then why should I use his writing as a basis to believe that Jesus existed.

Scholars agreeing that Jesus existed isn't real evidence to begin with, and the scholar you referenced is taking liberties.

[WilliamPitt]

124. It's been a while since I beat my wife.

[FiveGoodMen]

126. That's an incredibly worthless response to my post

I said nothing sarcastic or irrational.

[BainsBane]

10. Here

While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus, the portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1][12][13][14]

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


That he existed does not mean he was divine. That is a question of religious belief. The existence of Jesus of Nazareth, however, is accepted by historians.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Wikipedia isn't the source . Gerd Theissen is the source. He's a

German Protestant theologian, who has written several books arguing the historical Jesus.

Here's the argument against:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

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 came 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 about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

[BainsBane]

22. Okay, you are clearly operated on a basis of faith

So there is no point in telling you historians agree that a man called Jesus of Nazareth exists. Faith is impervious to evidence. You will believe what you choose.

[sinkingfeeling]

34. What historians 'agree'? What evidence do they agree upon to prove Jesus existed?

[BainsBane]

37. Follow the links in the Wikipedia article

and read the historical works yourself to see. Look at their footnotes. This is not my area of research. I would imagine they use the gospels, which are accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. They may very well have found Roman records documenting his arrest and execution.

[sinkingfeeling]

41. I have. There are no Roman records documenting anything about Jesus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jesus/gerdtheissen.html

[BainsBane]

162. You've read all those books in this short period of time?

Not likely.

[notadmblnd]

161. What about his contemporaries?

None of the literate contemporaries of Jesus know anything of him. The Jewish historian Justus of Tiberia who lived at the time of Jesus, do not know of him. (Tiberia was a place not far from Capernaum which Jesus often visited, according to the Bible).

The Jewish scholar and leader of the Jewish society in Alexandria, Philon of Alexandria (around AD 30 - 45) does not mention any Jesus anywhere in his texts. Philon was a famous scholar of the Old Testament and had deep knowledge of the Jewish cults of his time. He died ca. AD 50.

There is thus no real historical evidence of a historical Jesus. One would suppose that, a character like Jesus who according to the gospels raised the dead, healed the sick and annoyed both the Jewish establishment and the mighty Romans to such a degree that they finally had to execute him, one should think such a character would make it into at least some contemporary historical texts. Nope. No record.

In view of the evidence the only honest conclusion is that the Gospel's Jesus never existed.

That there once lived a wannabe-Messiah named Joshua (greek: Jesus) in the first century Palestine is more than probable. Roman sources tell of dozens of more or less religiously confused wannabe-Messiahs at the time, and Joshua was a very common Jewish name. But this could not be the Gospel's Jesus, not the Son of God, raising the dead, healing the sick, annoying the establishment, executed as a criminal, and then finally flapping away to heaven. All that stuff is pure mythical, and blatantly stolen from older pagan cults by the anonymous Gospel-authors.

http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm

[BainsBane]

163. The apostles were his contemporaries

They left accounts. Why have you decided those writings are less valid that the Roman ones?

[notadmblnd]

166. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels

They were also long gone by the time the Gospels were documented.

[BainsBane]

170. I've long ago exhausted my interest in this subject

but the absence of someone's name in a set of historical records doesn't mean they didn't exist. That point is obvious. You won't find my name in the New York Times. That doesn't mean I don't exist.

Moreover, there are references to him in some Roman writings, as Glassunion cites below.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023393317#post138

The gospels were written at different times, all after the fact, not unlike the Incan accounts of the encounter with Athahualpa at Cajamarca.

[notadmblnd]

181. I asked about his contempoaries writings. You said his Apostles were his contemporaries

which suggested that you were saying that the Apostles wrote about Jesus. I pointed out that they did not. I also provided information in regards to his contemporaries (people such as historians) who wrote about events during that time in history. Obviously, it went unread.

Now you've become exhausted. I can see why. You've avoided my question and presented a false argument. No, your name is not in the New York Times. However in 2000 years it will be found in the government records of our time. And IF you make a substantial mark in this world with your PHD in History, it might even be expected that you could be found in History books in 2000 yeas. And that is the point. There will be a record of your existence. With Jesus, we have a man that made a substantial mark in this world and there is no record of him outside of the Bible.

I'm certain, that during that historical period, there were lots of people named Jesus, just as there are many people walking the earth today that are named Jesus. But none of them is the Jesus that the Bible talks about.

As far as your last statement goes, I would think that there is first hand documentation of the conquest probably written by the Spanish if not the Incas within days or months of the event, not decades later, as the Gospels are.

[BainsBane]

40. This appears to be a good start

Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN 0802863531 pages 1-2

^ a b c d Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
^ a b Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford Univ Press pages ix-xi

[sinkingfeeling]

48. Really? First one listed is a bunch of essays about using the Gospels, language,

and Judaism in the search for a 'historical' Jesus. Or so claims the reviewer here: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/biography/v033/33.3.chilton.html

"Yet in the period after the Second World War, a self-described "New Quest of the Historical Jesus," championed by Günther Bornkam and Ernst Käsemann, emphasized the importance of crafting a portrayal of Jesus out of the Gospels, based not on a positivist historiography, but on the language Jesus used, and the language used about him, as precedent to the emergence of Christianity. This highly concentrated focus on the growth of the text of the New Testament was then challenged by Ben F. Meyer in 1979, whose Aims of Jesus insisted that Jesus could only be understood within the context of Judaism. That has resulted in what is frequently called a "Third Quest of the Historical Jesus."

[BainsBane]

56. Are you actually citing positivism as something to aspire to?

Is this the 19th century?

You obviously know nothing about the discipline of history or the nature of historical research. You are going to believe what you want and you obviously don't care what the evidence is. It's like the climate change deniers. Have at it. I don't have time for this kind of nonsense. It's all completely unnecessary because it has no relation whatsoever to Christianity as a religion.

[sinkingfeeling]

74. No, just belief in evidence. You have provided zero evidence.

[BainsBane]

180. It's not my job to provide evidence

of this. I am not a historian of this period. I pointed you to sources you can investigate if you want. Glass Union cites accounts besides the gospels that mention Jesus of Nazareth. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023393317#post138
It's clear to me that you aren't interested in evidence. You are operating based on ideology, which is your prerogative.

[tkmorris]

120. I mean this in the kindest possible way

" You are going to believe what you want and you obviously don't care what the evidence is." Think about that a second. Really stop and just chew on it. Furthermore " This is not my area of research. I would imagine they use the gospels..." You have admitted quite clearly that you yourself do not know what evidence there is to prove Jesus' existence. You rely upon the works of others but cannot cite them directly. And yet you are so certain Jesus existed that you are all over this thread arguing the point.

Faith is being argued as if it is fact quite a lot in this thread, but it isn't the people you think it is doing it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. You aren't. There is however, a veritable mountain range of evidence created by and for

people who desperately wish there were and so have created and maintained an illusion of opinion-as-evidence.

Just check the citations referred to in the Wiki-link, they simply relate or retell supposition from previous generations of supposition. OTOH, pointing out the delusions of the delusional is always dangerous and rarely worth the effort.

[FirstLight]

5. heh

Reminds me of Bill Hicks
"Lot of Christians wear crosses around their neck....you think when Jesus comes back he EVER wants to see another f-in cross?"

[hootinholler]

9. Damn post a spoiler alert will ya?

What will the next season of Zero Hour be about then?

[Ilsa]

157. I think it'll be about who is gonna carry

the baby!!!

Spoiler alert:




I was gonna guess the nun/wife, but it looks like she's dead now.

[kestrel91316]

11. I think they mean "archaeologists" with the quotation marks, as in

SUPPOSED or ALLEGED archaeologists. It is a science, and there is no scientific evidence that Jesus actually existed.

[BainsBane]

15. There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed

And widespread consensus among historians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Archaeology is a social science. It is part of the discipline of anthropology. Science is not the only form of knowledge on earth.

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a pretty basic point. Moreover, the notion of "scientific evidence" for a historical figure is bizarre. Has no one here ever studied history? Did Plato exist? Augustus Cesar? There is no scientific evidence for their lives, nor of the vast majority of historical figures. That is not what the discipline of history is. Evidence is established primarily through written accounts.

The existence of the man is a separate point from whether he is divine. It is not necessary to deny basic facts to not accept the notion of Jesus as the son of God.

[msongs]

30. please share your "historical" evidence, thanks nt

[kestrel91316]

54. (crickets chirping) - There IS none. What they have has been found not reliable or accurate.

[kestrel91316]

53. There is no legitimate, verifiable evidence that Jesus existed. There is one

highly dubious if not outright debunked "historical" reference to somebody akin to Jesus. There is no evidence that he was crucified or any of the details in the bible.

People take it on faith. You're supposed to. You're not supposed to need evidence to believe. But that's just more religious nonsense.

[BainsBane]

63. The question of his existence and being divine are two separate matters

The existence of the man Jesus of Nazareth is q historical question, and there is evidence for it. The religious issue is separate and question of faith. Obviously there is no evidence for that. If anyone here is actual interested in historical evidence, they can look through the sources cited in the Wikipedia article, read them, and see what sources they use. It appears to me, however, that people here are operating as much on faith in rejecting the existence of the life of Jesus of Nazareth as Christians do in insisting he is divine.

[truebrit71]

64. Thank you.

There has been no verifiable evidence that Jesus, or his "story", is anything close to the truth.

[Arkansas Granny]

103. I have seen no provable evidence that Jesus existed. However, I think that there was a charismatic,

itinerant preacher who had a following that believed that he was the son of god and that he could do miracles. He may have even believed it himself. I can see an oppressed population that already believed in superstitions and gods that spoke through burning bushes and whatnot being very receptive of his message.

I envision someone like Oral Roberts, Billy Graham or even Benny Hinn who was idolized by his followers and whose reputation grew and was embellished over time.

[jbond56]

88. You should probably drop your Cesar arguement.

Plato is the better of the two since there is fewer pieces of evidence.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

[BainsBane]

90. Wow, you sure proved that

an internet cite that proves what you want it to say. Forget the historians in universities across the world. You saw it on the intertubes.

[jbond56]

105. hahahah

I like you.

I thought it we be ok to cite the internet since you did. Did you cite anything else?

My point was Ceasar is probably the most documented figure in his time. I'm pretty sure historians and universities agree with that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

190. ...

Is there historical evidence that he was an immaculate conception of a mythical sky daddy? Geez why can't we evolve beyond this crappola?

[cherokeeprogressive]

172. In the same way as putting "bloggers" in the same sentence with "journalists"?

"It is a science..."

Could you remind me... what was the date that SCIENCE proved God never existed? I know I read it somewhere, but can't for the life of me remember: Who proved God never existed and when they proved it.

I know it's out there somewhere. Do me a favor and point me to that information.

[KansDem]

18. Was it customary to save crosses or pieces of crosses after a crucifixion?

I guess I've never thought about these questions. Were crosses reused or did each condemned have his own cross? What happened to the cross after the execution?

Two thieves were crucified with Jesus. What happened to their crosses?

[Morning Dew]

23. Stolen, I'd guess.

[BainsBane]

27. I recently read something about the men crucified with Jesus

They weren't thieves but traitors, or seen as such by the Romans. Much of our understanding of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is subject to mistranslation in English versions of the gospels, or accounts of the life of Jesus.

I don't study this time period so couldn't tell you about whether it was customary to save crosses. I expect it was not. However, a small group of people considered Jesus divine at the time. Hence the account of his resurrection. It is possible that one or more of them saved the cross.

It seems to me the best they can do is carbon date this fragment to show it's date. There is no way they are going to be able to tell who was crucified on that cross.

[RC]

89. The Shroud of Turin has his DNA, correct?

Never mind the weave of the shroud was invented well after Jesus death. Faith will endure over facts.

[BainsBane]

91. Of course not

that's absurd.

[RC]

93. What is? The DNA or the fact the weave being invented well after he died?

Remember, we are talking faith here.

[BainsBane]

94. The DNA

There is no DNA from Jesus of Nazareth.

[RC]

104. Then how can anyone prove the wood came from Jesus's cross?

Of course there has to be DNA in the shroud. Have faith, it can move mountains.

[Brother Buzz]

140. Reza Aslan just stated recently, Romans reserved crucifixion for traitors and rebels

Mere thieves were dealt with locally using local laws.

[BainsBane]

144. That's where I heard it

Thanks for the reminder.

[Ilsa]

153. I heard historian Reza Aslan, PhD say that only

those convicted of insurrection were crucified. It is probably also mentioned in his new book.

So your comment is on target, as is the edit to your original post.

Thank you!

[Nevernose]

42. They're all fake and were identified as fake in the Middles Ages

See Chaucer's "The Pardoner's Tale" for reference. Selling pieces of the One True Cross is a scam as old as Christianity.

[Deep13]

51. reused, I would guess. nt

[madrchsod]

187. cross were reused and if there were nails they were reused

nails were valuable items in those times.

[xfundy]

21. I have a shard of the True Cross!

Soon as I'm done with it, it goes on ebay!

[okieinpain]

45. ohhhhh you going to get it. lol.

[KatyMan]

24. Regardless of whether the man existed...

how can anyone believe the pieces of that alleged cross could still exist? Or were saved? I guess if you're gullible, you're gullible...

[Retrograde]

26. This the same one Helena discovered c. 330?

The church I attended as a kid had a piece of it - or so they told me. So do many, many other churches. There was a thriving business in separating pilgrims and crusaders from their cash in exchange for gen-you-wine guaranteed relics like burial shrouds of Jesus, true cross fragments, crowns of thorns, drops of Mary's milk bits of apostles, etc. Making them probably kept plenty of local artisans employed.

The article at the link is even more content-free than the reported find of the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth some years back. Even if they do have a 1350 year old piece of wood, there's still six centuries of missing provenance to deal with.

[egold2604]

207. Most of the "sacred" sites in Jerusalem were "divined" by Helena

Being the sister of Emperor Constantine helped Helena's credibility in finding "holy" sites.

Gee, this is where Jesus was crucified. Build a church here, etc. They sycophants built the church there and it became a very holy site.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

33. Wow.. and I've seen the rock that Mary rested on during her trip to Bethelem!

It had to be the same rock, a num dreamed about it!

[bowens43]

38. who comes up with this nonsense?

[Archae]

50. The same ditwits who go off climbing Mt Ararat to "prove" Noah's Ark is up there.

Remember the guys who made moneys out of the Ark finders by giving them wood cooked in teriyaki sauce?

I have no doubt this "archaeologist" mentioned in the OP is a fundy who got his degree in archaeology from Liberty "University."

[madrchsod]

188. what! it`s not up there!

dam another one of my childhood stories is crushed..

[Nevernose]

58. They've been selling this bills hit for 1900 years now

As I posted above, Chaucer excoriated purveyors of "genuine" holy relics nearly a thousand years ago.

As long as there's money to be made, people will keep selling shit about discovering the cross, or the ark, or the ark of e covenant, or the spear of destiny,or buddha's buttplug, or whatever there is to be sold to the gullible.

This is another fine example of "the dangers of magical thinking" that so many famous atheists are always ranting about.

[okieinpain]

44. all I have to say to you folks talking about no jesus, is you better go

see "this is the end". lol. don't miss the blue light special.

[Deep13]

49. One can stack a hundred cords of wood with fragments of the True Cross. nt

[Walk away]

59. It's not surprising to hear that people who follow a religion would believe this bunk.

I come from a family of Bronze Age archeologists and they are all Atheists. There is a reason. Anyone calling themselves a scientist who promotes of defends the Jesus myth is probably a Christian shill with an obvious agenda.

[hrmjustin]

61. I hope it is the real thing. It would be a blessing if it was the real cross.

[truebrit71]

66. Why and to whom?

[hrmjustin]

70. It is a blessing to Christians like me and I would be happy if it were real.

It would be a joy.

[truebrit71]

76. Still not sure why it would be a 'blessing'?

...or a 'joy'?

[hrmjustin]

79. If it were a part of the true cross we would have something of our faith to touch with human hands.

It would be a joy and a glad thing.

It is our faith that he died and rose again.

[truebrit71]

80. Wouldn't that rather be like someone in the Kennedy fmaily snuggling up to a rifle though?

...I mean, assuming he was real, and he was murdered by crucifiction, wouldn't the last thing he'd want to see be a symbol of the method of his excruciating last memory of this plane of existence?

[hrmjustin]

82. No! Remember we believe Jesus was raised and by his death on the cross we believe we are redeemed.

Christians a long time ago took the cross as a symbol of our faith.

[truebrit71]

83. Right, but I was suggesting that he wouldn't want the reminder...

...not his followers...

[hrmjustin]

86. Personally I don't think he would mind because I believe he is in heaven. But I can not speak for

him.

[bettyellen]

137. the concept of martyrdom is key to the faith...... without it, people wouldn't allow others

to subjugate them and feel "right" about it.
Behind every martyr is some selfish asshole laughing all the way to pub.

[Aristus]

62. I wonder if, among all the eager Christian pilgrims in history, paying money

to look at or even purchase a piece of "The One True Cross", there might have been someone who at least had this sensible thought:

That the "One True Cross" was probably re-used for subsequent crucifixions, over and over, until lost to history.

Or that it was dismantled after Jesus' crucifixion, and the wood put to some other purpose, and therefor, lost to history.

Either way, I'm not believing any story like this one...

[Bluenorthwest]

78. the old saying goes 'there have been enough pieces of the 'True Cross' sold to build Noah's Ark and

enough 'Milk From the Mother Mary' to float it in'. I heard this as a kid.

[1-Old-Man]

65. Well, if its for real the DNA testing on it should prove interesting.

Bwahahahahahaha .....

[BainsBane]

67. Seems to me the best they can do is carbon date it

They certainly don't have DNA evidence.

[truebrit71]

81. Maybe they should try some DNA that "most" historians agree is his...

...

[BainsBane]

85. Sorry to challenge your faith

With references to historical evidence. Please proceed.

[truebrit71]

95. Um, what faith?

I am an atheist and therefore unburdened with the need to try and justify the reality of middle-eastern fairy tales..

Again, please provide the "historical" proof...

[BainsBane]

99. Your faith

That trumps evidence. I naively thought atheists were supposed to be evidence based. More and more I find that isn't the case. It disappoints me.

If you want to look at the evidence historians use, go to the Wikipedia piece I sited, look at the bibliography, go to some of those books and articles and examine their footnotes. That is how you examine any historical evidence.

Historians do not use DNA.

[truebrit71]

102. Neither do they use Wikipedia of all things...

...

[eShirl]

185. Where did you say your PhD is from?

[muriel_volestrangler]

200. Yes, they do use DNA

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2008/04/080430-AP-czar.html

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/resultsofdna.html

Or DNA tests on populations to give evidence for population movements.

[1-Old-Man]

92. and where, Pray tell, can that be found?

the shroud of Turin perhaps?

[truebrit71]

96. It can't be found, just like the "proof" that he existed at all...that's my point...

..

[Behind the Aegis]

69. This has to be one of the worst examples of journalism (and archaeology).

I see lots of "believes" in the article. They jump from "a piece of a cross" to "a piece of the cross." How and the hell would they even begin to have a test to know it was "the" cross of the crucifixion? Romans (and a few others) used that form of punishment all over the then known world. My favorite part is, "Researchers aren't sure who owned the chest" but somehow they were able to extrapolate two things about said unknown person: s/he was "a religious person of some importance" and "apparently believed the cross relic was the real deal." It could have easily been a travelling huckster, who knew s/he was peddling crap-ola, and trying to make a fast buck.

This is a real piece.

[BainsBane]

197. Obviously there is no way something like that could be proven

Either it's journalists exaggerating for a story, some archaeologists or pseudo-archaeologists on a scam, or both.

The best they can do is carbon date it to the appropriate time period. There is no way to prove based on a fragment alone who died on the cross.

[opiate69]

71. Was it sitting next to the Shroud of Turin and the James Ossuary by chance?

[Sheepshank]

73. The crucifixes of yester-year, are the guns of today

I don't know that a medium for torture and killing (anyone) should be considered a holy thing.

[dusty trails]

77. That ain't nuthin'

I've got Jesus' 1st grade report card.
As precious as it is, I can be talked into selling it for a mere $200,000,000 ~ cash.

[boston bean]

84. "we have found a holy thing in a chest"

for some reason that sentence makes me LOL.

[muriel_volestrangler]

160. Because it sounds like a line from Monty Python?

[onecent]

87. THEY're NEVER gonna give up thinking they have found some

real honest to goodness "EVIDENCE"......What a crock...

[Blue Owl]

101. Looked old and rugged -- then it must be the real thing

n/t

[cbdo2007]

106. Well, that would be pretty cool if it was real.....

not sure how they could prove it somehow that sure would be amazing!

[mick063]

107. So the "fossiles are the work of Satan" theory has been debunked?

I guess carbon dating is of no use here.

It was probably planted ten years ago as a hoax.

[LittleBlue]

116. There is no proof he ever existed

He was mostly a fiction invented over a century after his supposed death. There were many men named Jesus in the Roman province of Judea.

I've no problem with Jesus as a figure of faith, but faith and history do not mix. Stories like this just confuse people into thinking Jesus is historical. When historians or archaeologists present him historically, it is either due to their faith or desire to avoid controversy, as no contemporary evidence exists to support his existence.

[petronius]

119. I wonder if there are some translation issues with what the archaeologist

actually said - she may have been announcing and discussing the find in Turkish, after all. (Note: the video wouldn't play for me; did the actual finder unequivocally make the 'True Cross' claim?)

On the one hand, if she really said something like "we've found a piece of the True Cross," then that is terrible archaeology. Finding an unprovenanced piece of wood in a chest belonging to an unknown person in a church built 660 years after the crucifixion of a highly-mythologized individual, and concluding that piece of wood is therefore from the execution of that person is faith, not science.

On the other hand, if she said that they found a piece of wood, in a context that suggests it was regarded as a relic, and that finding provides insight into religious practices and interactions in 7th Century Turkey, then that would be an interesting and scholarly statement.

It certainly possible that she's one of those pseudo-scientists, akin the YECs for example, that goes around looking to 'prove' her faith, but I've read enough journalistic misinterpretations of scientific findings to think it's at least equally possible that her claim has been exaggerated...

[Warren DeMontague]

121. You would be hard pressed to find non "Biblical" historians who agree that Jesus objectively existed

There is zero corroboration for any of it outside the Bible. None.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. Let me know when they find the sacred "Pipe" of "Bob"

[tridim]

130. Or Jesus' hash pipe. It should have drool on it with DNA.

[backscatter712]

179. ...or THE Holy Colander used to strain the Flying Spaghetti Monster! n/t

[nyquil_man]

128. How on earth would one go about proving that?

At best, they've found evidence that, 1350 years ago, members of a church believed they had a piece of the Nazarene's cross. That still leaves nearly six and a half centuries for which there is no account. How did the church get it? Who possessed it previously? Even if it's carbon dated and found to be 2000 years old, how does that prove it was used for this particular crucifixion?

There are simply too many gaps in the narrative to make such a big claim.

[tridim]

129. Didn't they "find" the ark a few times in the past 20 years?

[hrmjustin]

131. As a believing Christian I hope that it is genuine.

In the end I know it is impossible to prove whether it is the true cross or not, but it would be nice to be able to touch the true cross.

[Glassunion]

138. You should not have apologized.

Your OP was fine on its face.

I think that the biggest problem is that folks are having a really hard time separating the historical figure: Yeshua (Aramaic) --> Iesous (Greek) --> Jesus (English), from the religious figure the Christ.

Here is how I see it. Whether you believe in a Creator or not, be you Atheist, Agnostic, Theist, Deist, or any of the other multitudes of non-belief\belief, and just simply look at the evidence that is available, which is quite sparse, yet still there. One can come to the conclusion that the figure Yeshua ben Yosef existed. The problem as I see it with dismissing the very existence of the figure based solely on the amount of what little evidence exists is not a logical approach. It ignores the evidence that does exist.

That said… How easy would it be to prove the existence of a figure, who lived almost two thousand years ago? How easy would it be if that figure lived a Spartan lifestyle, owning only what he carried on his back? How easy would it be if that person also never took root and moved from place to place? How easy would it be to find documents of that person’s life if the culture and time he lived in, was mostly illiterate, and relied heavily on oral tradition and teachings? Damn near impossible if you ask me. Now how about if in Jerusalem (where he was executed), there was a siege, the city sacked and eventually destroyed a short 40 years after this figure’s death. Then, pile onto that the Roman Empire quite diligently worked to exterminate that figures followers for they were a threat to the empire. Here is a man history tried to erase.

But, let’s look at another character who lived at the same time: Pontius Pilatus, the prefect of the Roman Province of Judea. He lived during the same time, in the same area and in the same culture. What evidence is there that he even existed? Well, there are the Gospels, but to appease I will ignore those completely. Josephus (37AD – 100AD), a scholar who’s works were focused mainly on the Roman-Jewish war, Jewish history and a philosophy of Judaism. Now this man was alive during the period and had firsthand knowledge of the culture, and its leadership. His works, mention Pilatus, however he also mentions Jesus’ crucifixion, the stoning of James his brother, and imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist. There is also Tacitus, a roman senator and historian who mentions Pilatus, but in the same passage he mentions Christ. Then there is the last little bit of evidence… A stone with the inscription of Pilatus’ name and title as prefect. That’s it. Now, did Pontius exist?

Not all evidence of Jesus is from the gospels, but the way I see it is that Christianity had to start somewhere, and for its centerpiece (Jesus) to have been a completely fictional figure, I personally find it hard to believe. I feel that you have an oppressed culture, with the boot of an empire on everyone’s neck. All the while that oppressed culture’s leadership is far more interested in Rome’s money than the care of its people. Imagine to suddenly have a revolutionary figure. A man who was one of the oppressed people, who changed and shook the foundations of their culture, who went into the heart of their hallowed temple and started tossing the banker’s tables, was not playing by their rules, a man who was a direct threat to their entire system. The leadership of course would want to erase this man completely. But that man’s ideas struck a nerve at the right time and the right place.

[BainsBane]

142. Thanks for your reasoned response

It was not meant so much as an apology as a WTF? I hadn't realized that posting something I thought others might find slightly interesting would require donning a Kevlar vest.

[Glassunion]

143. It is what it is...

[Warren DeMontague]

152. There's no evidence outside the gospels. And there were several similar mystery cults at the time.

What about the similarities between the Jesus story and, say, Mithras? Or Osiris, for that matter?

If the evidence for Pontius Pilate's existence is similarly scant (except in Jesus's case, it's actually nonexistent) then his historical existence should be vigorously challenged, too.

What you're doing is conflating people challenging the assertion -often taken as an axiomatic fact- that "he" definitely existed, with people saying "he" definitely didn't.

I wouldn't say the latter, but the former is certainly a legitimate challenge to make.

The difference between science and dogma is, science asks the questions without being afraid of the answers. If there was objective evidence for the life of Jesus outside the bible, I'm sure people would be fascinated by it. But it's not there.

[GiaGiovanni]

141. Have they carbon-dated it?

Thanks.

[AlinPA]

151. Fundamentalist creationists don't believe in carbon dating, so won't convince them. Oh, wait-

it's about Jesus's cross so that's OK.

[GiaGiovanni]

155. So you don't know the answer?

I was actually looking for one. Thanks.

[hrmjustin]

164. Many Christians do believe in carbon dating.

[Ilsa]

154. There's a fun TV show on

ABC where the plot was to find the cross of Christ to get his DNA and clone him. Zero Hour. Silly show, but fun.

Thanks for your post!

[hrmjustin]

156. I see this post kicked up a few thoughts.

[boomer55]

171. A great site to understand the spiritual creation of the myth of Jesus

http://www.pocm.info/

[edbermac]

173. Maybe it was the cross of Brian of Nazareth

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"

[cherokeeprogressive]

174. 'e's NOT the Messiah!!!

[arcane1]

176. Aren't there like 20 places in Rome that claim to have the foreskin of Jesus?

There is so little info at thank link, and it references the Daily News as its source. Not to mention all the red flags of "believed to be" and "probably", etc.

This will turn out to be no different than claiming to find Bigfoot's campsite. I say this from an archaeological perspective, not a religious one

[Sanity Claws]

177. Helen, mother of Constantine, claimed to have found the cross in the 4th Century

I don't see how that claim can survive if the Church also authenticates this find.

I hope this now doesn't start a discussion of whether Helen or Constantine actually existed.

[backscatter712]

178. Call me skeptical... n/t

[madrchsod]

186. slow news day?

they actually found something that no one really wants to claim this piece of wood is christ`s cross. unless they have jesus`s dna on that piece of wood it`s just another fake relic.

[BainsBane]

192. They can't prove it

All they can do is carbon date it. Either some journalist is exaggerating claims or these archaeologists are out to make a packet, perhaps both.

[madrchsod]

189. well here`s islam`s take on the death of christ mystery....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus'_death

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. First, we have to establish if there's any wood involved at all, or just stone

This is the first report I can find in English, from a Turkish paper:

A piece of a stone with crosses carved into it that may have belonged to Jesus Christ has been found in an excavation of a church in the northern province of Sinop.

The large-scale excavation, led by Professor Gülgün Köroğlu, is ongoing at the Balatlar Church. The church was built in A.D. 660 by the Byzantines.
...
“This carved stone is the most significant thing we have found so far,” Köroğlu told the mayor and police chief, adding that her team has been carrying out the excavation for almost four years and has reason to believe the carved stone belonged to Jesus Christ.
...
In remarks to the press, Köroğlu said: “The excavation of Balatlar Church has been going on since 2009 and this stone is the most important piece we have found so far. We have also found a number of human bones during our excavation.”

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-322414-excavation-in-turkey-uncovers-carved-crosses-that-may-have-belonged-to-christ.html

So, we may actually be talking about a stone with crosses carved into it, not a piece of wood. The only pictures I can find are of this stone. And why anyone would think that Jesus would have had a stone with crosses carved on it, I don't know. It makes him sound like he was cashing in on his ordeal - "thank you for your donation, and here's a little something to remember me by. I had a job lot run up for me by this stonemason in Bethel".

[BainsBane]

203. The Romans could hardly have nailed him to a stone

I suspect it may be the Professor who is trying to cash in. Even if it is a fragment from a wooden cross, there is no way to know who died on it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

204. Yes, that's my point - the first report is just a stone with a cross on it

that (through mistranslation?) was thought to 'belong' to Jesus (should that have been 'dedicated to Jesus'?) The professor does seem to be trying to big it up, and say it'll be good for tourism.

Even if you have a bit of wood, how do you decide it comes from a crucifix, and not a house beam? (Well, if it had some blood on it, that would be a clue, I suppose).

[BainsBane]

205. I figured they could tell from the shape or something

that it was a fragment of a cross.
It was obvious from the above story there was a certain about of exaggeration but from what you've posted it may be a complete hoax.