RateItAll: The Opinion Network

"I'm a scholar. I do scholarly work which has nothing to do with documentary film-making. There's no way to take a religious story and to turn it into something scientific," he told AFP in a telephone interview.

"I still insist that it is a regular burial chamber from the 1st century BC," Kloner said, adding that the names were a coincidence.

"Who says that 'Maria' is Magdalena and 'Judah' is the son of Jesus? It cannot be proved. These are very popular and common names from the 1st century BC," said the academic at Israel's Bar Ilan University. (Yahoo News)

This thread is an interesting and exhaustive (exhausting?) read that fails to bridge the strongly held differences of opinion on the subject.

The doubters are looking for some hard physical evidence of his time on earth, a copy of the Roman order to crucify Christ, a piece of Jesus’ personal property, a contemporary document of some kind that specifically references Jesus in some way, like maybe his Carpenters’ Union membership card. The problem with that is that in his time he lived his life like a civilian, he was just another guy in sandals. Why would Jesus of Nazareth have warranted specific record keeping any more so than Albert Wilson of Jerusalem?

On the other side of the chasm are centuries of study that evaluate what boils down to anecdotes handed down by believers and eventually written, as well as analysis of what is known of the socio-political climate of the time. From this they draw conclusions as to the accuracy of the record reflected in the Bible and related scripture. It’s detailed historical sleuth work that aims at statistically confirming hypothesis in the face of a lack of first hand data.

In the end you have two groups setting a very different standard for establishing the truth, which leaves us with one deciding variable, faith. Either you have it or you don’t. The rest is just a lot of wind.

I've rated this before I decided to return. Here I go again (in other words skip over of course if you read this review from me). Historions have proved the biblical account of Jesus where they have affirmed he did get crucified, he did get baptized by John "The baptist", was a teacher/rabbi, and have affirmed the existence of Nazareth and that Jesus came that small villiage. Below, I give a general picture on how historians approach the subjects (at least from the books I've read).

What historions have done in this case was study the jewish culture from 200 B.C. to about 100 AD. They find that there were numerous individuals claiming to be the messiah at that time and many were proved to be false prophets if they got executed or did anything illegal. They also use the usual historical methods such as 1.) the criterion of embarrasment 2.) the criterion of multiple independent attestation 3.) the earlier the sources the better 4.) The context the story is written in that particular culture. From these premises historians have established the following unanimous facts.

BRUTE FACT 1: Jesus existed and got crucified by Pontius Pilate. The reason why this is obviously true is because a messiah in that jewish culture that got executed would have never been seen as the messiah after that. So the movement around anyone claiming to be the messiah that got executed would definately end. There were individuals claiming to be the messiah before and after Jesus's time that got executed as well and the movement did indeed end around them. So the fact that the early christians would have even mention this means it isn't something they would have made up and it had to be awkward for them to write it in the gospels. Historians think the early christians seem to explain it away as Jesus being innocent when he could be guilty for being a political revolutionary. So this passes the Criterion of Embarassment. It also passes the independent multiple attestation test as well it is mentioned in the earliest gospels written in Aramic and in Non-Christian historions such as Tacitus.

BRUTE FACT 2: Jesus was baptized by John the baptist. The reason why this is accurate because it again passes the criterion of embarassment. The reason is because anyone baptizing you is thought of as spiritually superior in that ancient Jewish culture. In the New Testament the writers seem to explain this away a bit as well as historians think. Also, John's connection with jesus is mentioned in the earliest gospels (and a non-christian source) and are thought to pass the independent attestation test.

BRUTE FACT 3: Jesus was a rabbi/teacher and his mission lasted a few years. Historians typically are critical and rule out a great majority of parables said by Jesus (hey, it's there job to be critical). However, some parables go against how the culture was back then as well. The parables almost all historians think are authentic are "Faith/Mustard seed, Kingdom of God, Good Samaritan, and Love your enemies". These are the four that seem most authentic to historains.

BRUTE FACT 4: Nazareth did exist. This is backed up with archaelogical evidence where they found middle aged tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth dating back to 7 B.C. They also saw a scroll written in Aramic where it said a family (existing in first century AD) was moving to Nazareth. So it is likely to exist and most historians do indeed know Jesus had grown up there.

This is it. These are the Brute facts believers don't have to take on faith. However, his ressurrection and miracles have to obviously be taken on faith (hence the four stars). Hope this helps.

Objectivity is paramount to rational debate. No amount of filings here to either side of the debate is credible where contributors comment from bias. Both sides should do well to keep their prejudices in check. For instance: the item does not submit anything other than debating whether there is or not historical testimony to support what is stated about Jesus in the Bible. RIA certainly is not a scholarly forum so, whatever the outcome of said debate should neither threaten, strengthen nor weaken the faith of those who believe in the Jesus that the Bible describes. Besides, the skeptics apparently have serious issues of their own as they go to such great lenghts to dissuade others of their religious beliefs. Where this contributor (and others here) is concerned, history is irrelevant in matters of Faith, hence, the three stars for marginal pertinence of the item. So, what's the harm?