STRYPERSWINE: Luke's source material were eyewitnesses, including Jesus' mother.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

The author of Luke himself says otherwise.

Troylus: Yes, yes. So some guys calling themselves scientists think that maybe there might have possibly been an earthquake sometime within a decade that sorta accords with the story of Jesus's cruxifiction. Or something.

But really guys, lets spend out time on something worthwhile!

Like pinpointing some good solid information regarding the weight of Thor's Hammer. I mean, not even the Hulk could pick it up!



He had a hammer?

Corporate Self: cman: I am more interested on the day Bat Man was born. Now there is a likable fictional character

Most scholars conclude Jesus, like Buddha and Mohammad, was a real person. This does not validate all the is written about Him, but to calling Jesus fictional goes against the opinions of most historians.

Most Christian historians is more likely.
...and just because the majority believe something is fact doesn't make it fact.

Where is your proof of such a human ever existing?

Anyway, what asshat allowed that article to be in the science section?
Is this entire planet completely insane?

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Benevolent Misanthrope: simplicimus: The date assumes Christ was born in 1CE. There's some debate about the year.

FTFY. Religious texts written centuries after their subjects supposedly lived are not a scientific primary source.

The earliest texts of the NT were written 30 years after his death, not hundreds. However, the article fails to understand that there is no way Jews of that era would have killed Jesus on a Friday.

The Roman government did it, with blessings from the Pharisees and other power-brokers of the time.

_{Pictured: History}

Corporate Self: cman: I am more interested on the day Bat Man was born. Now there is a likable fictional character

Most scholars conclude Jesus, like Buddha and Mohammad, was a real person. This does not validate all the is written about Him, but to calling Jesus fictional goes against the opinions of most historians.

Even if this is true, it would still be fair to say Jesus fictional in most contexts... just as it is to say that Santa is a fictional character, even though he is based on a real person.

srhp29: Now can Easter stand the Fark still and be on the same date every year, please?

Well, you'd have to convince people to not have it tied to Passover first.

"What DID Paul see on the road to Damascus"? Peter Jennings. RIP

So, all of the sudden we are trusting scientists?

Barbecue Bob: Most Christian historians is more likely.

See how many non-Christian historians you can find who don't think Jesus existed.

Where is your proof of such a human ever existing?

If you ask historians about Jesus existing, they'll be happy to rattle lots of names of people who are taken as being real people for whom there's as much direct evidence as there is for Jesus.

It's about faith. Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins on the cross and rose three days later?

The dates are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what some theologian thought decades or centuries later.

Jesus matters.

Benevolent Misanthrope: simplicimus: The date assumes Christ was born in 1CE. There's some debate about the year.

FTFY. Religious texts written centuries after their subjects supposedly lived are not a scientific primary source.

Decades, not centuries, in the cases of most of the New Testament. And the subject of Christ's existence is outside the purview of science. It is history, and it meets historical standards; almost everything else could be made up out of whole cloth, more or less, but he certainly existed. There were accounts written of Christ during the lifetimes of people who had known him; he was mentioned by a nonbeliever (Josephus) around the same time, providing further evidence, and that is as much as we can say of any historical figure. It is unreasonable to expect more. The story of Jesus wasn't passed down for centuries like much of the Old Testament, it was written down very quickly by the standards of the day. That in no way implies that it is accurate, but Jesus clearly existed and made a big impression on a number of people.

COMALite J: it normally took days, not hours, unless you were "lucky" enough to be crucified on Friday (or, barring that, at least Thursday so at least your agony would only last a little over one day)


You lucky bastard!

Lucky, lucky bastard...

Chiad: phrawgh: Pocket Ninja: simplicimus: But the 4 Gospels in the NT are 100 or so years after the events.

Really. Wow, that's interesting, too. Maybe time went faster back in those old days.

That would explain the 6000 year old earth!

Sun used to go around the earth also, until we figured out telescopes and God decided (in his infinite wisdom) to give us some more room to explore. It's just like when god made the earth round so Columbus wouldn't fall off and gave us that big empty continent full of things to exploit.

I see... So God is kinda like Sid Meier?

phrawgh: Chiad: phrawgh: Pocket Ninja: simplicimus: But the 4 Gospels in the NT are 100 or so years after the events.

Really. Wow, that's interesting, too. Maybe time went faster back in those old days.

That would explain the 6000 year old earth!

Sun used to go around the earth also, until we figured out telescopes and God decided (in his infinite wisdom) to give us some more room to explore. It's just like when god made the earth round so Columbus wouldn't fall off and gave us that big empty continent full of things to exploit.

I see... So God is kinda like Sid Meier?

Almost suspiciously.

AverageAmericanGuy: died for your sins

Funny thing about that, it was Paul's interpretation of it, and it actually took a while to really get picked up.

BTW this isn't the first time someone has pegged the date as April 3, 33 CE. The first two do do it worked using astronomical tables. And the first of them published his finding oh 23 years ago.

malaktaus: Decades, not centuries, in the cases of most of the New Testament. And the subject of Christ's existence is outside the purview of science. It is history, and it meets historical standards; almost everything else could be made up out of whole cloth, more or less, but he certainly existed.

I think you need to go read Bart Ehrman's book (any of them) and get back to us. Jesus doesn't show up in historical Roman documents and there's not a single mention of any of the very public events he was allegedly involved in (beating money-changers, miracle healings, etc) either. You'd think SOMEONE would have made a note, even if it was the equivalent of a police blotter. I think the teachings attributed to him are fine and most of the social propaganda is harmless, but let's not pretend there's some 'historical standard' that exists outside of 'real person'. Otherwise, there is as much (or more) documentation that King Arthur was 'real' and is coming back, so you may want to polish your armor.

simplicimus: The date assumes Christ was born in 1CE. There's some debate about the year.

Actually it doesn't really. The whole thing of Jesus' age rests on one verse from John where it says Jesus was about 30 when he started his ministry, he could've easily been a few years older than 30.

WhyteRaven74: Barbecue Bob: Most Christian historians is more likely.

See how many non-Christian historians you can find who don't think Jesus existed.

Where is your proof of such a human ever existing?

If you ask historians about Jesus existing, they'll be happy to rattle lots of names of people who are taken as being real people for whom there's as much direct evidence as there is for Jesus.

Such as;
Santa?
Buddha?
Zeus?
Kwan-Yin?
Moses?
Thor?
FSM?

I've asked plenty of historians and they tell me the same vague and citation free crap you're spewing.

Don't pawn off the question on others. Where would someone find one piece of physical evidence beyond the New test. that a man named Jesus Christ existed?

COMALite J: So what was so great about His suffering that it enabled paying for the sins of everyone?

Kind of overlooked that He could have ended it any time by just cooperating with the priest, as well as that whole scourging thing, Oh well, this is Fark, I already realize the kind of discussion that will be given on this topic.
You go on, Comalite, I realize that attacking this is one of your hobbies here.

Well, I would post something, but I am about to watch Episode 2 of Season 2 of Sherlock. Hope you all are having wonderful evenings.



/I totally predicted Diablo III should never have been released.
//Buy Torchlight II.
///Jesus probably loves you, but I don't know you well enough to formulate an opinion.
////Happy Friday in thirty-three minutes!

KrispyKritter: Barbecue Bob: Corporate Self: cman: I am more interested on the day Bat Man was born. Now there is a likable fictional character

Most scholars conclude Jesus, like Buddha and Mohammad, was a real person. This does not validate all the is written about Him, but to calling Jesus fictional goes against the opinions of most historians.

Most Christian historians is more likely.
...and just because the majority believe something is fact doesn't make it fact.

Where is your proof of such a human ever existing?

Anyway, what asshat allowed that article to be in the science section?
Is this entire planet completely insane?

silly rabbit. if JC never walked the earth performing miracles witnessed by others he never would have grown a following. without JC there never would have been the Jesus movement that grew into Christianity. from small seeds big trees grow. a cult does not evolve into a religion choice for millions without cause, over time.


"Anyway, what asshat allowed that article to be in the science section?" - you might want to read the title of TFA.

L. Ron Hubbard would like to have a word with you.

Brainsick: malaktaus: Decades, not centuries, in the cases of most of the New Testament. And the subject of Christ's existence is outside the purview of science. It is history, and it meets historical standards; almost everything else could be made up out of whole cloth, more or less, but he certainly existed.

I think you need to go read Bart Ehrman's book (any of them) and get back to us. Jesus doesn't show up in historical Roman documents and there's not a single mention of any of the very public events he was allegedly involved in (beating money-changers, miracle healings, etc) either. You'd think SOMEONE would have made a note, even if it was the equivalent of a police blotter. I think the teachings attributed to him are fine and most of the social propaganda is harmless, but let's not pretend there's some 'historical standard' that exists outside of 'real person'. Otherwise, there is as much (or more) documentation that King Arthur was 'real' and is coming back, so you may want to polish your armor.

Are you high? How many unimportant ephemeral documents from that period survive? I think we can discount the miracles as bullshiat, but it's not like we can look through a roll of microfiche for the report of an assault in the Temple on page 5. He wasn't an emperor or a general, he was probably very unimportant in his day. It would be bizarre if there was more direct evidence of his existence than there is. Most everything else about his story is questionable, but yeah, he lived. The story we have is, I think, like an ancient game of 'telephone,' which began as a simple story of a carpenter with unusual ideas who met a bad end and quickly grew into something more.

Brainsick: You'd think SOMEONE would have made a note

A huge part of the city of Rome burned to the ground in 64 CE. You'd think this would be a big deal to the various Roman historians who were working at the time, yet not one mentions it. Indeed the only historian to mention it was Tacitus, who was 7 when it happened and he wrote it about several decades later. Indeed Tacitus' account is not only the only authoritative account by a historian, but by anyone. And you'd think any of the many historians alive when the royal library aka the great library of Alexandria was supposed to have burned to the ground would write about it. Yet none does. We have a nice account of the fire, it tells exactly what part of the city the fire it was in and even how big it was. Only problem is, the fire wasn't where the library was.

The Bible describes Earth's creation. Earth exists. Q.E.D. Jesus haters

malaktaus: he was mentioned by a nonbeliever (Josephus) around the same time, providing further evidence, and that is as much as we can say of any historical figure. I


Josephus was born in 37 A.D. and wrote "the antiquities of the Jews" in 97 A.D., not exactly "around the same time"...

Josephus's single paragraph talking about Christ in "The antiquities of the Jews" was not only written over 6 decades after the supposed death of christ, but was in fact written by a thoroughly dishonest "historian" named Eusebius in the 4th century. Over 400 years later. It is now known to be a forgery. So, Josephus never did write anything about christ.

KrispyKritter: Barbecue Bob: Corporate Self: cman: I am more interested on the day Bat Man was born. Now there is a likable fictional character

Most scholars conclude Jesus, like Buddha and Mohammad, was a real person. This does not validate all the is written about Him, but to calling Jesus fictional goes against the opinions of most historians.

Most Christian historians is more likely.
...and just because the majority believe something is fact doesn't make it fact.

Where is your proof of such a human ever existing?

Anyway, what asshat allowed that article to be in the science section?
Is this entire planet completely insane?

silly rabbit. if JC never walked the earth performing miracles witnessed by others he never would have grown a following. without JC there never would have been the Jesus movement that grew into Christianity. from small seeds big trees grow. a cult does not evolve into a religion choice for millions without cause, over time.


"Anyway, what asshat allowed that article to be in the science section?" - you might want to read the title of TFA.

Yeah, I read it.
Then I read the first line of the article "Geologists say Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday, April 3, in the year 33."
Which geologists say that?
Who are these pillars of factual argument?
These "researchers" and "geologists" and "historians" being mentioned in the article and here. I imagine they have faith... because they have no evidence. No science or even court of law evidence. None.

The part in the first linethat says "as described in the new testament" speaks volumes. You might as well have said "I read it on the internet" and it would equally be as true.

Zero.
Physical.
Evidence.

No Jesus. No gods. Sorry if that bothers you.

malaktaus: I think we can discount the miracles as bullshiat,

I wouldn't say the miracles are bullshiat so much as things Jesus did that ended up being turned into miracles after being retold over and over again. Water into wine? He went and bought some wine for a wedding feast. Bread and fish for the masses? Gee a few of Jesus' closest friends were fisherman, they could've caught the fish and Jesus bought the bread. And on it goes. Of course if you take things that way, you brush up against the assumptions made about Jesus' social standing and such, none of which have any Biblical support at all. Though if you ever want to see certain people utterly lose their shiat, suggest that Jesus didn't actually grow up poor.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus.

All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. None are more than hearsay.

Barbecue Bob: These "researchers" and "geologists" and "historians" being mentioned in the article and here. I imagine they have faith... because they have no evidence. No science or even court of law evidence. None.

BTW the date they come up with matches the date come up with by two other people who used totally different date to come up with the same date. And these two people were astronomers, who just figured they'd give it a shot and assume that was written had some validity. To them it was just something to do on the side for kicks. And oh yeah, they didn't do it together, each one did it separately using a slightly different approach.

Kali-Yuga: Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus.

All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. None are more than hearsay.

What cracks me up about Jesus is that His name is basically Josh in modern parlance. Mean, I have due respect and reverence for Him, but Josh just isn't the best name to use if you want to be easily identified in historical records.

Kali-Yuga: Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E.

Tacitus was born in 56.

AverageAmericanGuy: but Josh just isn't the best name to use if you want to be easily identified in historical records.

Well in Hebrew the name means "Yahweh is salvation", so it isn't totally off. The funny thing is even though most of the other names of the Bible are presented in their proper translation, no one has as yet put out a translation with Joshua in the place of Jesus.

WhyteRaven74: Kali-Yuga: Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E.

Tacitus was born in 56.

Therefore his argument is invalid? C'mon.

The importance of Jesus isn't the date he was born or died. It that He paid for our sins by dying on the cross.

Relatively Obscure: goatleggedfellow: I'm still waiting for Ridley Scott's "New Testament: The Final Cut" to come out.



It's too bad he won't live. But then again, give it a few days.

Wonderful.

AverageAmericanGuy: It that He paid for our sins by dying on the cross.

Well according to Paul he did. Interestingly enough none of the Gospels nor the Acts of the Apostles mention any such thing. Also one could ask just what Paul meant when he said "for our sins", did he mean what theologians took it to mean, the sins of all mankind, or were the sins, those of Judas, the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate? Paul never does say what he means, and given how he worded things, there's no way to tell exactly what he was driving at.

simplicimus: Pocket Ninja: Benevolent Misanthrope: simplicimus: The date assumes Christ was born in 1CE. There's some debate about the year.

FTFY. Religious texts written centuries after their subjects supposedly lived are not a scientific primary source.

The New Testament was written centuries after Christ lived? That's interesting.

Well, there are gospels attributed to contemporary witnesses (Mary Magdalene, Peter and Thomas), but they got cut at the Council of Nicaea. (Didn't fit in with the approved narrative) But the 4 Gospels in the NT are 100 or so years after the events.

1. The apocryphal books you mention were not cut out of the canon. They were simply left out of it when it was being formalized. And yes, there were theological reasons that they were left out, but there were also legitimate historical reasons: even fourth-century bishops knew that these gospels were way too late to be considered genuine.

2. I don't know where people keep getting these outrageously late dates for the gospels, but all you have to do is open up the historical introductions to the Gospels in the HarperCollins Study Bible to see that, according to the current consensus of New Testament scholars, the earliest gospel dates to the 60s CE and the latest one dates maybe into the first decade of the second century CE.

Leaving you all with this:

Raise the Bones of Evlis

malaktaus: Brainsick: malaktaus: Decades, not centuries, in the cases of most of the New Testament. And the subject of Christ's existence is outside the purview of science. It is history, and it meets historical standards; almost everything else could be made up out of whole cloth, more or less, but he certainly existed.

I think you need to go read Bart Ehrman's book (any of them) and get back to us. Jesus doesn't show up in historical Roman documents and there's not a single mention of any of the very public events he was allegedly involved in (beating money-changers, miracle healings, etc) either. You'd think SOMEONE would have made a note, even if it was the equivalent of a police blotter. I think the teachings attributed to him are fine and most of the social propaganda is harmless, but let's not pretend there's some 'historical standard' that exists outside of 'real person'. Otherwise, there is as much (or more) documentation that King Arthur was 'real' and is coming back, so you may want to polish your armor.

Are you high? How many unimportant ephemeral documents from that period survive? I think we can discount the miracles as bullshiat, but it's not like we can look through a roll of microfiche for the report of an assault in the Temple on page 5. He wasn't an emperor or a general, he was probably very unimportant in his day. It would be bizarre if there was more direct evidence of his existence than there is. Most everything else about his story is questionable, but yeah, he lived. The story we have is, I think, like an ancient game of 'telephone,' which began as a simple story of a carpenter with unusual ideas who met a bad end and quickly grew into something more.

Yeah, I'm going to piggyback on this. As someone who is about to start a Ph.D. program in late antiquity, I'm sure glad we don't throw out every historical character who only has three or four miracle-ridden writings attesting to his existence. Otherwise I'd have to go into radiology or something. Jesus of Nazareth more than meets the basic criteria for historians to say that he existed.

Ghastly: Relatively Obscure: goatleggedfellow: I'm still waiting for Ridley Scott's "New Testament: The Final Cut" to come out.

[farm6.static.flickr.com image 140x250]

It's too bad he won't live. But then again, give it a few days.

You've done a Son of Man's job, sir.

AverageAmericanGuy: The importance of Jesus isn't the date he was born or died. It that He paid for our sins by dying on the cross.

The Name: Yeah, I'm going to piggyback on this. As someone who is about to start a Ph.D. program in late antiquity, I'm sure glad we don't throw out every historical character who only has three or four miracle-ridden writings attesting to his existence. Otherwise I'd have to go into radiology or something. Jesus of Nazareth more than meets the basic criteria for historians to say that he existed.

That's as may be, but.I have even stronger 'evidence' that Pee Wee Herman exists. I have a signed photograph. I'm sure you wouldn't want to throw him out.

/For FSM's sake...

If there's any contemporary written record of Jesus's existence, please post a link to it here.