The likelihood of finding archaeological evidence of Jesus is minuscule.

[MineralMan]

But, why is there even such an effort? Religious belief is based on faith. That is said, over and over again, by the religious. So, if faith that there was a Jesus who was a demigod is enough, why is an impossible archaeological search for evidence of his existence even worthwhile? There is no expectation of statuary, monuments or any other sort of artifact that mentions him. Without such things, it's essentially impossible that any physical evidence of an individual's existence will be found.

Instead, we hear that "this site could have been the place where Jesus..." We see excavations of temples and other places that "might have been" mentioned in the Bible.

Is faith not enough? Is it dependent on physical evidence?

[zipplewrath]

1. Huh?

You may have achieved a new low here.
Is there something specific that inspired this question? Because right now it isn't making much sense.

[MineralMan]

3. Yes. Of course there is. Look at the group's thread list.

It's a valid question. Have you an answer?

[trotsky]

5. What is "low" about this?

Please be specific.

[Mariana]

7. I have to ask along with Trotsky, why is it low? nt.

[MineralMan]

10. Perhaps that poster misread my original post.

I don't know. But, asking questions about religious beliefs and actions seems to me to be appropriate in a group that discusses religion. I'm not sure why that poster finds my question "low." Threads on archaeology and religion are fairly common in this group, since a good deal of effort is being made in that area.

I'm at a loss to explain that post, really.

[zipplewrath]

19. The connection

I'm missing the connection between faith, archaeology, and anthropology.

[MineralMan]

22. I don't believe I mentioned anthropology at all.

You said that it was "low" that I asked this question. Clearly, there are many people who are actively seeking evidence through archaeology. My question, of course, is "Why?" There is no meaningful chance that any proof of a historical Jesus will be forthcoming. So, it is faith that is required, as is the case for most religious beliefs.

My question, again, is: "Is faith not enough?"

What is "low" about that question? Why did you post a reply that attacked my motives in asking a question that has been asked many times?

I'll wait here for your answer.

[zipplewrath]

25. It's the purpose of the excavations

The excavations of "holy sites" is an exercise in anthropology and/or archaeology. It's not all that different from efforts to find Atlantis. We look for things all the time that may, or may not, exist. SETI falls into that category as well. So does the search for "life" on Mars.

(As an aside not really connected with this thread, anthropology is about to get REAL interesting as they begin to sort things out through DNA evidence. Migration patterns will begin to be exposed which will greatly alter our understanding of cultural history. It may be interesting to see if there is any evidence of the enslavement in Egypt, or a mass migration out thereof).

[MineralMan]

27. What is "Low," zipplewrath?

Answer that, please. You wrote that my post reached a new "low." Please explain that attack on my post. It was merely a discussion starter about evidence versus faith.

[zipplewrath]

28. Really not allowed

A detailed explanation would violate DU policies of personally criticizing a member.

[MineralMan]

29. Ah. So, your criticism had nothing to do with this particular post?

I see. Well, then, never mind. I see that it is a personal thing.

[stonecutter357]

33. you can't express yourself without braking the TOS ?

[Bradshaw3]

34. Then why make the comment in the first place?

I mean, if you're not going to explain then it's not an honest critique.

[zipplewrath]

51. Context n/t

[Bradshaw3]

68. Ahh that explains it

[rgbecker]

36. Boy, never realized the DU religious group was like the gun nuts.

They are jumping all over someone pointing out that looking for evidence of Jesus's existence may not be related to religious faith and suggesting otherwise is a slap in the face of the scientists working on it. I'd suggest Mineral Man drop the demand to recant the charge of "Low" and back up his question. Is he suggesting only those with little faith are looking for physical evidence of existence and thus charging that these scientists are somehow of lessor faith than others? And what is that all about?

[MineralMan]

39. This is not the "Religious" Group. It is the "Religion Group."

It is here for the discussion of religion in general, not just to promote religious belief. Everyone is welcome here to discuss topics related to religion.

You can find a description of the group and what is appropriate to post in it here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1218

My question is whether faith is adequate for someone to believe. If it is, then no physical evidence should be needed. And yet, the search continues for evidence. Since that search is unlikely to yield such evidence, I wonder what the point of it is.

I'm not saying that anyone has "little faith." Not at all. I'm asking a question that seems to me to be valid. I'm an atheist. I have no religious beliefs. Everything I believe is based on evidence. I believe nothing based on faith alone. However, many people believe things that are based on faith alone. So, my question is, why search for evidence, if that is the case?

As far as this subthread is concerned, I have my answer. So, I understand now the reason for that comment by another DUer. I have no initerest in extending that discussion.

[rgbecker]

40. I'm guessing there are as many atheists looking for evidence of Jesus's existence as faithful.

That is, in proportion to total number of atheists vs faithful in the professional scientific field. Many scientists are looking for evidence of things that are unlikely to be determined within our lifetime, and yet they continue to do so. Fortunately, they do so even though skeptics constantly disparage the search by claiming nothing is come of it. The point made by one of the posters concerning life on other planets is a good example.

Your question could be narrowed to make more sense. "Do the faithful search for physical evidence of Jesus' existence because they actually lack faith?" or "Do the faithless search for physical evidence of Jesus' existence with the hope of finding eternal salvation?" or "Why don't the archeologists searching for Jesus' existence give it up, are they driven by faith that they will find something?"

[MineralMan]

48. Those are your questions, not mine. I asked mine.

I don't know the religious beliefs of any archaeologists, because I known no archaeologists.

Yes, scientists are always looking for evidence. That's the nature of science. When evidence is not available, they may form hypotheses, which are questions, and then search for evidence. However, they do not say, "I believe this, with or without evidence."

You mentioned life on other planets. Many scientists hypothesize that there may well be such lifeforms, and look for evidence that demonstrates that there is. However, until they have that evidence, they do not actively believe that those lifeforms exist. They ask the question and then look for answers. If evidence is found that supports the hypothesis, they continue their search for more evidence. If no evidence is found, they still keep looking.

What do I think? Well, I think that it is likely that life has developed in other places than Earth. I don't state that it has, however, based on my thinking. I also don't look for evidence, because that is not my profession. Instead, I follow what others are doing in looking for that evidence by reading what they report. Nothing in my life depends on whether or not such lifeforms exist. It's just an interesting question that remains unanswered. I have no beliefs regarding extraterrestrial life - just the question.

What do I think of a historical Jesus? I think there probably was such a person. Do I believe that such a person had supernatural characteristics? No. I don't. I've seen no evidence whatsoever of such supernatural entities or phenomena. Do I believe that a religion developed based on that Jesus? Of course, There is evidence of that religion everywhere. Does that religion affect my life? It does, in small but significant ways, since I live in a society that is made up of many people who follow that religion. So, I am interested in that religion, because it has an affect on my life.

[Brainstormy]

79. I find the subject interesting, but

archaeological proof of Jesus' existence wouldn't in any way address his divinity. Frankly, though, I don't really get this whole thread.

[zipplewrath]

56. I thought this wasn't your question?

My question is whether faith is adequate for someone to believe. If it is, then no physical evidence should be needed. And yet, the search continues for evidence. Since that search is unlikely to yield such evidence, I wonder what the point of it is.

The "point" is to further archaeology. That is why the search "continues". It has nothing to do with faith, despite your implication. ergo my original point.

[trotsky]

38. You criticized a member of DU by calling his post "a new low."

That ship has sailed.

Seems a bit disingenuous to say you can't explain because you'd break a rule you already broke.

Perhaps just apologize and retract. That would be a nice thing to do.

[guillaumeb]

44. Are you going to criticize MM for starting a copy cat post?

Similar to the comments that I hear from members of the small group? Or is that particular criticism reserved for theists?

Edited to add: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218260786

[MineralMan]

49. DU is full of "copycat" posts.

They are allowed. Often, they are created to present a different perspective on a subject that was raised in another thread. I create them from time to time, and so do you. There's nothing wrong with them at all.

So, why should someone criticize them? I don't.

[guillaumeb]

50. Others have, particularly when I post them.

So I wondered if the person that I addressed will apply the same standard. I will wait for the answer from that poster.

[Mariana]

75. Then why didn't you ask those others the question?

Do you think all the posters who participate in this group are interchangeable? You think it's right to call out one for the actions of another? It doesn't work that way.

[guillaumeb]

84. Not all of the posters.

But some people reading here will notice a certain sameness to some of the responses. It could be a coincidence.

[Lordquinton]

73. He doesn't do it as a habit

Nor out of desperate attempts to reframe losing debates.

[trotsky]

77. Nope.

Because it's a total stretch on your part to compare what he did to what you have done, and continue to do.

You posted a link to a story from a Rupert Murdoch/FOX media outlet. MM posted an overall commentary on what finding archaeological evidence of this Jesus fellow would actually mean.

You, when you're losing a discussion (as so commonly occurs), you pick one part of it and go start a new thread, re-phrasing the terms to be more favorable to your position.

Apples and oranges.

[guillaumeb]

83. And you are trying to frame this as a right wing site,

rather than actually address the particulars of the article. If you have evidence that the magazine has been scientifically corrupted by the new ownership, by all means post such information.

But you have no such evidence, so you are trying to discredit the article by talking about the new ownership. So, speaking of rephrasing to more favorable terms, you once again demonstrate how you are operating in this thread.

Congratulations.

[trotsky]

93. I am doing nothing of the sort.

National Geographic is part of the Murdoch media empire. That is a PROVEN FACT, no matter how much you won't accept it. How much do Murdoch and his company influence the content provided by NatGeo? I don't know, but just as importantly YOU DON'T EITHER.

It is just something that consumers of media need to keep in mind. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but it's reality.

Now, getting away from your pivot, I'll repeat what I said.

You posted a link to a story from a Rupert Murdoch/FOX media outlet. MM posted an overall commentary on what finding archaeological evidence of this Jesus fellow would actually mean.

You, when you're losing a discussion (as so commonly occurs), you pick one part of it and go start a new thread, re-phrasing the terms to be more favorable to your position.

Apples and oranges.

[guillaumeb]

107. You are demonstrating what is called a double standard.

And you have the right to demonstrate and follow that standard. And others have the right to comment on it, or to notice and let it pass without comment.

[trotsky]

109. And you are talking about yourself.

It is clear to all.

[guillaumeb]

110. "Something" is clear to many here.

As the many comments make clear, including ones addressed to you from fellow non-theists that have appeared recently. Comments about anger, and other reactions. Perhaps you dismiss them all, but some reflection might be in order.

[trotsky]

111. Oh so now you're going to the personal attacks.

I guess you lost again. Must be frustrating.

[guillaumeb]

112. Not an attack at all, simply an observation.

DU readers can all read the comments, and unlike your numerous comments to me, I do not accuse you of humiliating yourself, nor do I make any other personal attacks. Do not confuse my pointing out the obvious with a personal attack.

Again, self reflection might be in order.

[trotsky]

113. Wow.

So pointing out that you have utterly failed to support any of your claims, thus humiliating yourself in the process, is a "personal attack"?

You are 100% correct about one thing, probably because I have told you it again and again: DUers can indeed read ALL the comments. I'll repeat something else I've told you many times: I will HAPPILY let my posts be judged alongside yours.

Bring it on, g. Your attacks aren't going to scare me away.

[guillaumeb]

114. More framing, and again, demonstrating what I, and others, pointed out.

Thank you.

[trotsky]

115. Wait, you have a "choir" now too?

[guillaumeb]

116. Some of the choir identify as non-theists.

But the choir is open to all. The pay is non-existent, the benefits even more so.

[trotsky]

119. But everyone who calls you out is...?

I believe you have implied they are all the same person, fake accounts. Is that what you think? You first used the term "choir" to try and deflect from the increasing number of people pointing out the same logical flaws and pathetic tactics you continue to use. Why did you choose that word instead of acknowledging the common criticisms and engaging in some.... self-reflection?

Do go on. This is fascinating.

[guillaumeb]

120. More accusations?

Your technique reveals much about you.

Feel free to cite where I have made any such accusations of fake accounts and such things. That is a very serious personal attack, in my view.

[trotsky]

121. Nice try.

Here's what I said:

"I believe you have implied they are all the same person, fake accounts. Is that what you think?"

You are answering my question with a "no," I take it? Then that issue is settled. Now continue.

[Lordquinton]

122. Speaking of double standards

The "many" you speak of, that would be the mere handful of people you always jump in with whenever anyone else uses that term, correct?

[Lordquinton]

124. I do know one sad fact about NG

When I research things like global warming I get old articles where all the links have been broken on their site.

It's a changed outfit.

[trotsky]

125. That is sad indeed.

There is no question Murdoch operations have altered the organization.

[MineralMan]

123. This long subthread has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

I am not the subject of the thread, which is about archaeology and a historical Jesus. This subthread is a purely meta discussion, which you began to call me out about copycat threads, and is not on topic. Please don't hijack my threads. Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

127. There are numerous subthreads here.

As is common on DU.

[Mariana]

67. There's no need to do the nice and honest thing.

Jesus will forgive. In fact, he probably already has, and it's like it never happened. Isn't that convenient?

[Voltaire2]

90. really not about anthropology

There is a branch of anthropology that concerns itself with " the study of religion in relation to other social institutions, and the comparison of religious beliefs and practices" but that does not concern itself with "is this the tomb of Jesus", it isn't relevant.

You are 100% correct about this: "It's not all that different from efforts to find Atlantis."

[guillaumeb]

42. I posted something Wednesday that apparently triggered this opinion piece.

My piece concerned archeological evidence for Jesus. Some people persist in the belief that Jesus never existed as a historical figure.

[MineralMan]

52. Which people are those? I'm certainly not among them.

I think there probably was a historical Jesus, or Yeshua or Yoshua or whatever his actual name was. But, I don't think any evidence of that will be forthcoming. A religion, based on stories about his life, has grown to be one of the world's largest religions. That makes it of interest to me.

But, I haven't met anyone who claims that such a person never existed. I'd like to discuss that with such a person. Do you know someone like that on DU?

[guillaumeb]

55. I have read posts denying the existence of historical Jesus at DU.

Here is one such post. I am certain that I could find others, as could you, using a keyword search.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218170344

[MineralMan]

59. I see. Well, I don't think I'll bother replying to a post from 2014.

That would be a waste of time.

[guillaumeb]

60. I agree, but in response to my claim, you did ask:

But, I haven't met anyone who claims that such a person never existed. I'd like to discuss that with such a person. Do you know someone like that on DU?

And now I hope we can agree that there are such people at DU.

[MineralMan]

61. Well, that person has not posted on DU since 2016.

So, I don't think I'll waste my time there.

[guillaumeb]

62. From 2017, in the Atheists and Agnostics group

https://www.democraticunderground.com/123052913

[MineralMan]

63. I choose not to post in that group.

However, the thesis that there was no historical Jesus appears to be made by the author of the book, not the DUer. I'm quite sure there are people who hold that there was no historical Jesus. I don't know. My assumption is that there was, given the development of a religion based on such a person.

I'm equally confident that there were a number of people with the equivalent of that name in that place at that time. It's likely that one of those was an Jewish activist. There were lots of those back in those days, too, given Rome's rule over the region.

[guillaumeb]

64. I understand. I have read many of your pieces and was not accusing you. eom

[Mariana]

70. Does anyone in that thread deny that Jesus existed?

The thread is about a particular book. Perhaps the author of the book makes that assertion. I can't say, I haven't read it. I don't see where any of the posters in that thread do so. There is discussion of the likelihood of the reality of Jesus, and the evidence in favor or against, but no one says outright that he never existed.

[guillaumeb]

82. Doing a tiny bit of research, one can find:

stopbush (18,831 posts)
27. The best indicator that Jesus didn't exist is that the particulars of his

supposed life as depicted in the Buy-bull are the same particulars that existed for other Mediterranean gods before Jesus was supposedly born. There was no need for a real Jesus to have existed in any form upon which to hang the trappings of myth than there was a need for a real Zeus to have existed upon which to hang the trappings of Greek myth.

Couple that with the fact that the writings of St Paul - which were penned decades before the gospels - do not portray Jesus as a corporeal being, but as a spirit who "lived" in a spiritual realm, and who only connected to humans through visions. And, Paul never mentions any of the supposed life events about Jesus that are detailed in the gospels.

27 replies into the thread. The title contains the statement. I have seen others, but I leave it to you to find more if you wish.

[Voltaire2]

91. the jesus described in the gospels is obviously mythical - that jesus clearly never existed.

There might have been a real person who was the basis for the biblical myths, but there is no actual historical or archaeological evidence to substantiate that claim.

[Cartoonist]

2. Faith is not enough

Believers know they have no proof of any of the BS in the Bible. That's why they cling to anything they can use to legitimize their myths.

Find an old piece of lumber on a mountain, then the story of Noah is true. Find an old wheel on the bottom of the Red Sea, then the story of Moses is true.

Watching theists trying to prove their beliefs is a tragi-comedy.

[HopeAgain]

4. It's only important to those who don't understand

The rudiments of their own faith. All the Axial age religions, Buddhism, Confucianism, early Christianity turned the focus away from the other towards the self. It was a turning away from religion as an enforcer of other's actions in favor of self-examination and accountability.

Religions like fundamental Christianity, on the other hand, still believe the main goal of faith is to create a set of dogmatic beliefs to control others. To do that, they have to claim a supernatural superiority that must remain unquestioned. Their impossible hope is to find empirical evidence that proves they are right and cannot be questioned.

From the archeological standpoint, it is important to learn what the basis and beginnings of the world's great religions are. Was there really a Moses, for example? Current thought is that there was certainly never a Moses that mirrored anything in the Old Testament, nor even the slavery circumstances described.

We do know that there were first generation followers of a man named Jesus who was crucified, from a contemporary Jewish historian named Josiphus, but we are unlikely to find anything more from outside the religious texts

[MineralMan]

9. Very well put. Thank you!

[yallerdawg]

6. 2000 years ago the body of an executed criminal disappeared from a tomb.

Why on earth would there be a historical record?

Why on earth wouldn't the tomb be used for another body, any other body unknown to history?

What did Jesus say at the time?

"Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Yes, MM, faith alone.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, faith alone.

That is part of the core of much of Christianity, at least post-Reformation Christianity. That's my question. If that alone is enough, why search for what cannot be found? At the time Jesus was supposed to have lived, he had only a few followers. No records survive from the Roman rule at that period. There is no physical evidence to support the information that is believed by Christians, and none is likely to appear.

We don't even have any contemporaneous written records. Those have all crumbled into dust. There are no inscriptions about that almost unknown man. No statuary. No bones, although any bones of Jesus would pretty much destroy the story that has been told. Religion is a thing of faith. Of belief. People who believe that deities exist do so on faith, alone, since none have been seen.

It seems like a wild goose chase with no real reason for that chase. Yes, cities and places mentioned in the Bible exist, or did exist. Archaeology can reveal the remains of them, and natural features are still present that were present then. But that's not really in question. It is a man these people are searching for, and they'll find no evidence of that, I'm certain. Indeed, if the Gospels are correct, no such evidence actually could exist.

[guillaumeb]

43. Your personal opinion.

Perhaps this opinion is necessary to you as a foundation for your own beliefs, perhaps not.

[MineralMan]

45. As it says in my signature line, everything I write here

on Democratic Underground is my opinion. Did you mistake it for something else?

Evidence is the foundation for my beliefs. Where there is no evidence, I do not know or believe. That's why I ask questions. Others may know what I do not and have evidence for what they know. I'm always learning.

[guillaumeb]

46. So you insist on evidence,

while also asking why is there a search for evidence. Okay.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

11. 2000 years ago in a society known for meticulous records

a person started a movement against the government, organized a core group of people, converted thousands to his way of thinking, raised the dead, cured the blind, and did a number of other miracles. Yeah, why would anyone have talked about that?

[yallerdawg]

13. Right.

Just another rabble-rouser among thousands crucified by an occupying military force, so innocuous Pilate washed his hands of the whole thing.

"King of the Jews" was NOT an honorific title, it was mockery.

But as you like to point out, word of mouth and talk DID spread the story, as you argue no one contemporary wrote the book.

[MineralMan]

14. Oh, they talked about it, no doubt, if those things occurred.

But, conversations were not recorded at the time. The region was a Roman territory or colony back then. Messiah figures were a nuisance, no doubt, to the Romans. They interfered with the Realpolitik of the day. And there were several of them, apparently. Most have long since been forgotten, but people talked about this Yeshua guy a lot, and his following survived to talk even more after his execution by the Romans' surrogates.

Eventually, Rome even adopted this new religion and became one of the centers of Christianity. All because of talk, really, a few letters, and an idea that became very popular.

[Lordquinton]

24. It wasn't long afterwards that teh Romans took up the religion

With all their meticulous record taking you'd think that they would have made more effort to prove the origins.

[MineralMan]

26. Yes, you would think that.

I would think that. With the Romans, adopting Christianity was a political move, really. The branch of Christianity that started in Rome eventually became the largest branch of that religion. Rome was a powerful force. In many ways, what we do know of early Christianity and most of the Scriptural accounts passed through Rome and were accumulated, edited and copied there. And changed.

The Eastern Church, and the Copts and other early church groups that survive had their own development, but even those were co-opted by Rome to some degree. Power and numbers rule.

2000+ years is a very, very long time, when it comes to written records. So long that the original materials that may or may not have existed are now lost forever. What little we do have that was recorded near to that time is fragmentary, at best. It has all been parsed, combined, edited and compiled into what we now treat as scripture. There are other documents, of course, that have been discarded along the way, although some of them still exist somewhere in archives. But none are contemporaneous, as far as we know. Most are now located in the Vatican archives. Most that didn't become part of the Canon have little availability to scholars.

2000+ plus years is a very, very long time in human history. We know little about that time from contemporaneous sources, really. Very little.

[zipplewrath]

30. Wasn't that large

quite honestly, until St. Paul and the conversion of non-jews, it wasn't that big of a sect of Judaism. Most jews didn't like them much, it was one of many at the time built around particular individuals, and could have easily been relatively "unremarkable" to an outside observer.

[Mariana]

16. You're dismissing the magnitude of the events that supposedly took place.

According to the story, it's not just a matter of a crucified troublemaker and a robbed grave.

For example: Matthew 27 : 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

There's no such thing as a three hour eclipse, so it wasn't that. If it was just overcast and gloomy for a few hours, why would the writer of Matthew mention it at all?

And: Matthew 27 : 51-53 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

A bunch of risen dead people wandering around a city after an earthquake is a pretty unusual thing.

Of course, the writer of Matthew could have made that stuff up.

[MineralMan]

17. Your last sentence. Yes.

It also could have been added to the account later, I imagine. It's been a long time since those days, and who knows what has been edited, added, changed or whatever?

It's very dramatic, though. However, I think those events were only mentioned in Matthew, If I recall correctly. So...

[guillaumeb]

47. But we should not look for evidence.

Because....................something.

The constantly moving goalposts and a constantly changing narrative on the part of a small group.

[Voltaire2]

92. well there would be a tomb.

Dead people getting up and walking around is sort of a big deal, especially executed criminals. The state generally likes their executees to stay dead. A contemporary historical record of this astounding event should exist. Also there were a series of other spectacular miracles described in the gospels to establish the divinity of the god-man, these too should have resulted in written records.

[Mariana]

106. It wasn't even just one executed criminal.

The book says "many" corpses rose up out of their graves and walked around the city, and were seen by lots of people. It wasn't just the one executed criminal, it was a city-wide zombie apocalypse, yet no one except the writer of Matthew thought that was worthy of being recorded.

Of course you are right. So many people are supposed to have seen the resurrected Jesus that word should have gotten back to the authorities. Wouldn't they have sent someone out to investigate? If Jesus was troublesome enough to execute him in the first place, the last thing they would want to deal with was him up walking around afterward, stirring people up all over again.

[JayhawkSD]

12. It's an interesting thought, but I can sort of see the issue.

Jesus, the Bible tells us, came to this plane to tell us of and illustrate certain truths. To believe the fact of his presence might, to some people, be necessary in order to believe the truths of which he spoke and which he portrayed. But the fact of his presence is not the point, really. It is the greater truth of which he spoke which is the point, the trusting in the father and the manner of living with our fellow man, and that can be believed as a matter of faith alone, not caring whether the presence and earthly actions of Jesus are true or not.

C.S. Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is known to be fiction. We don't go around looking for the rock upon which Aslan was slain. And yet there are lessons to be learned from that book about how life should be lived.

So the Bible may be literal fact, or it may not. It would be nice if it is. But the importance of it is what it has to teach us in the manner of the life of its characters, whether real or fictional.

I would have to pity the person so short sighted as to think that if they were not real then the whole thing is meaningless.

[MineralMan]

15. Yes, which is more or less my point.

For a religion based on faith, such proof should be unimportant. It is, in fact, unimportant for most Christians, I think. And yet, the search for evidence continues, and continues to produce no real tangible results, beyond some buildings and other things mentioned in the Biblical accounts. They were part of that society at the time, but offer no proof of the existence of Jesus. That must be accepted through faith. I just find the continuing search puzzling.

[Docreed2003]

85. Excellent points and I think it speaks to the heart of what we call faith...

That being said, most of the “Holy Land sites” attributed to Jesus are likely bogus. It was >300 years after the time of Christ that Constantine’s mother traveled to Palestine and documented these “Holy Sites”. Three hundred years! While some of what she deemed to be “Holy Sites” may have carried local historical traditions as being the places key to the life of Christ, it remains just that, tradition with no historical proof.

[marylandblue]

88. The buildings and what not are part of the search

They aren't just looking for evidence of Jesus but to learn more about that time of history. For some it may help them understand the Bible better. And, of course, if they found the Holy Grail, then so much the better.

[Bradshaw3]

18. For some finding physical proof is tantamount to proving divinity

It isn't, of course. Maybe they accept science, unlike some religious folks, so they are trying to reconcile or use modern science - in this case archaeology - to give credibility to a faith that has no contemporaneous historical record of a person delivering miracles or any other newsworthy activities that drew mention in the literate society of that time.

[MineralMan]

20. Well, clearly, proof of divinity is impossible.

So, that's right out. Plus, given the story as it has been told, there aren't going to be any bones to be found of Jesus. So, what evidence are they looking for, I wonder? If there were writings or inscriptions or statues of the man, with his name clearly provided, that might be partial evidence. However, he had rather a common name in the region at the time, the equivalent of Joshua. So, there would have to be more, I'd think.

Of course, there are enough relics of the "True Cross" to build a small house. There's that "Shroud of Turin," but dating for it is inconclusive and there's no label on any of that to indicate whose shroud it was.

Bottom line is that there's almost no chance that clear evidence that Jesus, or whatever his name actually was, walked the earth at that time in that place. And there won't be. That evidence has long since perished. So, why keep conducting searches for it? It just makes no logical sense to me.

[left-of-center2012]

21. I find discussions like this very interesting.

Putting aside the divinity of Jesus, is there not some evidence that the person existed?

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

[MineralMan]

23. No, not really. Your article points to materials that

were not contemporaneous. Really, there is no contemporaneous written evidence that has been discovered. The chances that some such evidence will be uncovered are beyond minuscule at this point.

Did such contemporaneous writings exist? Perhaps. We don't know, actually. None have appeared, and that's a little puzzling. In my own mind, it seems incredible that people who recognized the significance of such a man and the events would not have written and preserved their observations at the time. The early church would have, it seems to me, done everything possible to preserve such real evidence as sacred relics, if for no other reason.

However, there were other reasons to preserve any such contemporaneous accounts. Christianity was evangelical from the start. Proof of Jesus would have been very powerful in spreading this new religion. Yet, there is none of that evidence, nor any mention of such evidence in what we have from the early churches. If there were, we would know of it, I am certain.

I believe that such a person may well have existed at the time. However, I question that person's importance at that time. The religion developed from stories about that person. All of those stories were written after the fact, based on available evidence. Religions are different from historical accounts. They have a different focus.

Christianity has grown into one of the world's largest religions. It has been very successful. However, all of that is based on faith, not evidence. That's OK. It's a religion, after all.

[left-of-center2012]

31. From what I've read over the years ...

... the "time of Jesus" was a period of great unrest and rebellion against the Roman occupation.
There were many who professed to be a 'messiah', saying they were sent to lead the Jews to a better existence.
So, at the time, Jesus may not have stood out.

I read a book some years ago, the title I no longer recall, which put forth the idea that Christianity was created and formed by Paul after Jesus' death, for his own personal reason, to keep the movement going.
Originally it was just another of many Jewish cults, but for it to grow Paul included non-Jews (Gentiles).

I don't think you'll find your "Kilroy was here".

[MineralMan]

32. Yes, Paul was largely responsible for the spread of Christianity

in Rome and further. If you analyze most Protestant churches' liturgical calendars, a great deal of time is spent with Paul's letters. He interpreted Christianity for the world of the Gentiles, and made it fit into their world.

There's no minimizing his role in the development of the church, for sure.

[Bradshaw3]

72. Here is a list of writers from that time period to the first century

whose writings we still have today. Some are from the period while others are a few decades later. Josephus is the only one I've found who mentioned a historical Jesus and his work was transcribed by Christian monks who obviously had an agenda to prove his existence as a divine figure. And even with Josephus the mentions are few; you would think the son of God who performed miracles had reams written about him by most if not all of these writers. That doesn't seem to be the case.

(sorry for the cut and paste job)
Josephus Juvenal Lucanus
Philo-Judæus Martial Epictetus
Seneca Persius Hermogones Silius Italicus
Pliny Elder Plutarch Statius
Arrian Pliny Younger Ptolemy
Petronius Tacitus Appian
Dion Pruseus Justus of Tiberius Phlegon
Paterculus Apollonius Phædrus
Suetonius Quintilian Valerius Maximus
Pausanias Dio Chrysostom Lysias
Florus Lucius Columella Pomponius Mela
Lucian Valerius Flaccus Appion of Alexandria
Quintius Curtius Damis Theon of Smyrna
Aulus Gellius Favorinus

[Enoki33]

35. For the believers blind faith has already provided all the answers

and consequently, l suspect, there is no longer the need to look further. It is one way of dismissing the lack of archeological evidence, or even to seek it. Ask them the question which Jesus are they referring to, for there was certainly more than one who was preaching religious dogma, and they get all bent out of shape. Historically it was the one that was best marketed.

Disclosure: It is simply my opinion expressed here . There is no intent to question or belittle the belief of others.

[MineralMan]

37. I don't use the term, "blind faith."

People hold religious beliefs. In almost all cases, they hold them because they believe, based on faith, in what the religion teaches. The very existence of deities has only faith to support the belief that such entities exist. No evidence is really even possible.

I don't really fault anyone for that. I don't believe, because I cannot. I don't care if others do. Since religions are hugely important to massive numbers of people, they are interesting to me. I live in a world where religion is important. That makes it important to me to understand the major religions around me.

It also raises a lot of questions in my mind. I have great difficulty in believing things that are not supported by actual evidence. So, I'm always curious about people who do believe in such things.

In the case of this thread, my question is about the ongoing search for evidence by people who profess Christianity. Faith is proclaimed to be the basis for that belief. And yet, many people and much money is spent looking for evidence that might prove even that the person who is at the center of that faith actually lived as described in scriptures.

That's puzzling to me. It appears to be highly unlikely that such evidence will be discovered. So, why search for it, if faith is adequate? It's an interesting paradox.

[guillaumeb]

53. Scientists searching for evidence constitutes a paradox?

An interesting opinion.

[MineralMan]

54. No. That is not the paradox, Guillaume.

Perhaps you can read what I wrote more closely.

[guillaumeb]

58. You finished:

It appears to be highly unlikely that such evidence will be discovered. So, why search for it, if faith is adequate? It's an interesting paradox.

And my comment stands about scientists searching for evidence.

[guillaumeb]

41. Perhaps you should write to the archeologists and scholars

and inform them of your opinion on this matter. It might be that they are unaware of your opinion about this and that new awareness could cause them to abandon all such efforts.

[MineralMan]

57. I do not maintain any correspondence with anyone like that.

I do, however, post on Democratic Underground. That is sufficient for me. Thanks for your suggestion and your polite reply.

[Act_of_Reparation]

94. How many professional archaeologists do you suppose are looking for evidence of Jesus?

[MineralMan]

98. Only the ones who get funded to do that looking.

Funding for archaeology is spotty and scarce, really. One source is religious groups seeking evidence that their religion is supported by real facts.

In a Republican-run government, funding for archaeology is likely to decrease sharply. It's a lot of archaeologists out there looking for something to do, I suspect.

[Act_of_Reparation]

99. The point is...

...I don't suspect there are many serious archaeologists looking for evidence of a single man. Archaeology seems less concerned with historical individuals, and more with ancient societies and how they functioned.

[MineralMan]

100. I'm sure you're right about that.

They know that such a search would be fruitless, unless that person was a King or other important person.

I love archaeology. It's one of the most interesting of the field sciences, I think. Even a dig at a privy site is fascinating.

[marylandblue]

104. Israel is also the easiest place in the Middle East to do archeology

Politically stable, lots of local support and you can dig almost anywhere and find something.

[MineralMan]

105. True. The whole Middle East is a treasure trove

of archaeology. I remember the base where I was stationed in Turkey. It was on the top of a hill looking out over the Black Sea. I used to walk around the areas of the base that weren't covered by buildings and find Byzantine and Roman coins lying on the top of the ground. There was even a Byzantine mosaic-floored water cistern on the base. We used to take six-packs down into it.

A real dig on that base would have turned up who knows what.

[guillaumeb]

108. Which has what bearing on anything at all? eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

117. Would you acknowledge it if I told you?

Like your hypothetical archaeologists I have a knack to seeing the futility in certain things.

[guillaumeb]

118. "Hypothetical archeologists"?

Denying their credentials?

Again, do you have any point here?

[marylandblue]

65. It isn't the pure faith guys doing the searching

It's the ones who believe the evidence supports the Bible. The ones who say that wherever the Bible says there is a city, we find a city. Now that may not be quite true, but they believe it is and like to look for more things to confirm their existing beliefs.

[MineralMan]

66. I suppose so, although many people mention what is found

by those folks. It's no surprise that places with names found in the Bible did exist or even still exist, with layer upon layer of ruins beneath them.

Similarly, it's not a surprise when structures used for religious or other purposes are found in excavations of those places. However, the stretch occurs when it is supposed that they are evidence of anything other than the fact that places have names that were mentioned.

Understanding such evidence is the challenge. And looking for evidence some specific individual who lived 2000 years ago is pretty much a waste of time, really. Unless statues were erected or that person's name was written on structures that can be excavated, there is not likely to be any such evidence.

People have looked for Noah's Ark, too. Probably, they've looked for the Tower of Babel, as well. The Walls of Jericho? Well they've been the subject of searches, also.

There are many archaeological sites around the world. Some we understand well. Others, we understand poorly. It's an interesting field of study, if unrewarding financially, for the most part. For me, the most interesting things are preserved writings. From cuneiform tablets to the hieroglyphics found in Egypt, writings are the most revealing.

[Enoki33]

69. Interesting that we have Egyptian, Sumerian, Sanskrit and Vedic

writing that researchers and archeologists are increasingly showing to be historically accurate on many fronts. Some of their less plausible claims, if not quickly dismissed, are either relegated to the level of myths, or alternatively often outlandish interpretations are concocted. Yet totally implausible claims made by the writers selected to comprise the Bible are acceptable on the basis of faith.

[MineralMan]

71. Well, one culture's myths are another's scripture.

And there it is, really. When cultures were more isolated, they created religions that were in line with those cultures. Humans have created all sorts of religions, but only one is believed by each culture. The rest are pure mythology.

Aren't we funny animals?

For example, think of the Greek and Roman deities. We dismiss them today as myths, but they were the actual, believed religion of Greece and Rome at one time. Christianity replaced them. Why? Because it's simpler and easier to deal with. Just one deity to appease.

[left-of-center2012]

80. "they created religions that were in line with those cultures"

The Cargo Cults of the South Pacific

[Mariana]

81. Christianity used to be easier to deal with.

Nowadays, I think it's just as complicated as any of the old polytheistic religions, especially for a new convert who wasn't raised in one or another of the varieties of Christianity. Imagine trying to pick and choose among the thousands of denominations available today.

[MineralMan]

86. Well, pretty much the entire planet has now

Been exposed to Christianity. Evangelistic missionaries generally stick to the basics. Those are quite simple to understand. The complexities come later.

[hunter]

74. It's sort of like BitCoin.

People have faith that the numbers "mined" are truly special, and a few still believe Satoshi Nakamoto is a real person.

[samnsara]

76. for me physical evidence is everything

[Cary]

78. Good questions

Why does the Bible have to be literally true? Whoever said it was an historical document?

The Bible was written by Bronze Age people who didn't even know about things like atoms or cells. The Bible is a story written by primitive people seeking a relationship with their creator. The Bible is a metaphor, the only way primitive people might grasp concepts thousands of years beyond their grasp. Literal interpretation of the Bible is the most superficial way to read it.

But then, MineralMan, the alleged "New Testament" is really all about doing unto others as you would have them do unto yourself. I think that's the key to why so many insist upon the literal. They will have nothing to do with deeper meaning.

[Pope George Ringo II]

87. Considering that we're nowhere near certain even that a man corresponding to the myth ever existed?

It's definitely possible that a man founded a religion and sent his followers out, but it's also quite possible that the stories--especially the more obviously plagiarized ones--exist entirely independently of any genuine human being at the core of the mythology. An actual historical Jesus of even the most mundane proportions is by no means necessary. Either way, ISTM the myth is certainly more important than the man in this case, as the resulting churches have long had a tangible impact on the world through their interpretation of that mythology.

Even so, looking for actual evidence of what his contemporaries apparently regarded as a nobody--hordes of dead walking the streets and so forth notwithstanding--at this date seems unlikely to generate much in the way of results. A search would be an inefficient use of resources comparable to the hunt for Ziusudra's Ark by any reasonable standard, but if somebody wants to use their resources that way, well, they're their resources to use.

[Iggo]

89. I have no problem imagining it's zero. (n/t)

[MineralMan]

95. Well, I'd say it approaches zero, anyhow.

However, who knows? We may someday find a sketch of the historical Jesus, drawn by some follower and labeled accordingly. That's exceedingly unlikely, but exceeds zero in probability.

[Iggo]

96. I'll go with virtually zero.

[MineralMan]

97. Yup. I agree.

[RKP5637]

101. ... like Searching for Bigfoot! n/t

[MineralMan]

102. Or a crashed UFO in Atlantis!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

103. Archaeologists won't find anything proving or disproving who or what Jesus was.

Most scholars believe Jesus was a real person, probably one of many itinerant rabbis who were known to be traveling around the region. The Jesus described in the New Testament might have even been a composite of these; all of those writings were created decades after the events in question were claimed to have occurred and are certainly a collection of legends that grew up around him (them?) later. Since the Jesus of the New Testament, whatever or whoever he might have been, was historically important, it stands to reason that archaeologists would be interested in finding whatever evidence about him that still exists.

The fact that they haven't found a lot of physical artifacts makes sense because whoever he was probably poor and didn't have a permanent home - he didn't have a house they could identify and excavate. If he was executed as the gospels describe, it probably would have been along with many others, and their bodies dumped somewhere (unless Joseph of Aramathea did manage to take the body away) - a body wouldn't be identifiable. Whatever they might find will be historically interesting, but the question of whether he was the son of God, as Christians believe, can't be solved by archaeology. But that isn't the reason they're looking.

[Lordquinton]

128. They don't need to find anything disproving

Proof or no proof, all science needs.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

129. Of course. That's not what they're looking for anyhow.

They are looking for relics and artifacts relating to a person who might have really existed and who had significant historical importance. The religious angle isn't really relevant to that kind of exploration except to the extent that scriptures might provide some clues.

[Mike Nelson]

126. I'm surprised...

...there isn't more evidence. I wonder if maybe supporting documents may have been destroyed - maybe because they contadicted the Biblical account or did not make him "divine" enough. I think the "proof" people see in the shroud and cross fragments is fake news - probably created by ancsestors of FOX!