Experts and users discuss religion in society, bible: Burden of Proof
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.





Burden of Proof
- From American Atheists
By American Atheists - An Educational Organization for Atheists
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evidence of Jesus's existance
Roman documents
Pliny the Younger wrote to the Emperor Trajan about the year 110 AD asks his superior what they should do with the Christians who’s impact has seen many of the pagan temples being abandoned. He admits that the Christians have a great many followers and that they sing hymns to Christ as if he were god. He wants to know what to do about the situation.
Suetonius, Roman historian, in his “Lives of the Twelve Caesars, speaks about the expulsion of the Jews from the city of Rome for causing disturbances at the behest of Chrestus.
The existence of Christ by the Roman historians is taken for granted
Tacitus writes about the burning of Rome and cruelly punishing the Christians. He also mentions the founder, Christus, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius.
Jewish historian Josephus. He refers to Christ twice about winning over many converts. Christ’s existence is never questioned.
The Talmund refers to Yeshu’a of Nazareth, that he practiced sorcery (performed miracles) and led Israel astray and mocked the wise, that he was crucified as a false teacher.
- Big O
December 16, 2008 6:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus vs Tiberius Caesar
Sir, you cannot believe this to be logical argumentation. First, since NT Wright is such a prominent researcher of ancient history, I would think you’d take his opinion more seriously. I’m afraid your atheist bias is showing here. Bishop Wright’s statement is completely justified. The point is, denying Jesus existed, considering the huge body of evidence we have on him as a poor, Jewish, itinerant preacher of God’s Kingdom in the first half of first century Palestine, would be more difficult than denying Tiberius Caesar existence with all the evidence we have for him being the Roman emperor at that time. Moreover, since it is your opinion that goes against the vast scholarly consensus here, you carry the burden of proof. And again I must emphasize, it is you who has elected to choose the opinion of non-experts like Doherty, Wells, and Drews, rather than the work of recognized scholars of NT and ancient history. Therefore, you must provide the evidence to overcome this field-wide consensus. No silence argument admissible, as these show nothing more than, well, silence. But back to your comparison, you cannot seriously be trying to compare the archelogical/textual evidence for the Caesar of the Roman Empire to the archelogical/textual evidence for a poor Jewish peasant who was crucified as a heretic and seditionist, can you? These are two totally different people of two very different contemporary importance. Do you expect to find coins minted for Jesus? Walls erected in his honor? Perhaps you don’t know, but Christianity was outlawed in the Roman empire for the first three centuries of its existence and viciously persecuted. It is amazing that we have the vast body of evidence that we do when we consider how much the pagans destroyed in terms of Christian documents. It is not surprising that we find more textual evidence than anything else. And here, Jesus’ attestation far outweighs Casear’s. Fianlly, how do you know that scholars are not wrong or lying about the “evidence” they have for Tiberius Caesar? How do you know such evidence exists at all? Have you ever seen it? Held it? Perhaps your not being skeptical enough here. After all, if a handful of Jews could manufacture a story about another nobody Jew, than what about the whole of the Roman empires power attempting to re-write history?
- fenrir23
December 17, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
To the contrary...
The onus is on those challenging the prevailing paradigm. In this case, that would be mythicists.
- obrienr
December 17, 2008 1:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wrong metaphor
We are not dealing with paradigms and history is not democratic. It is a tyranny based on whatever evidence can be brought to bear on the issue. Without evidence you can't claim historicity. An untested historical theory, whether it is popular or not, has no historical weight. History is only interested in the evidence, so, no matter the subterfuge, eventually it comes down to whether there is evidence for a historical Jesus or not.
Instead of committing to one view or another it is better to weight for the evidence and then make a rational decision based on that evidence. Until then it is wiser not to commit and, if you can't help committing, be prepared to change at the drop of a piece of evidence.
- spin December 22, 2008 4:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Of Course Jesus Existed!
There is little doubt that there was a man by the name of Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate because he and his small sect of Judaism made both the Romans and the mainstream Jewish authorities nervous. He is mentioned both by his followers and his executioners. Whether or not he was the Messiah prophesied in the Torah/Old Testament, a Prophet, a magician, or a David Khoresh-style lunatic, or anything else are up for debate. Obviously, evidence for someone who at that time was some non-citizen nobody being crucified out in the provinces is going to be signifigantly less than that of an Emperor.
- richardsonkr
January 13, 2009 8:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Of course Jesus existed
Sir, First, I have not read through all of the comments on this site and concerning this issue, so I may be a little ill informed as to all their content. It is abundantly clear to me that Jesus is a myth, a powerful myth, but a myth nonetheless. There is so little so called historical evidence that it is laughable. Evidence has to be unbiased and quiet separate from any "religious" writings. There are a few references that could be construed as being about Jesus but unless you have seen and read these in their original form, I suggest that you treat them as suspect. I do not read Aramaic, ancient Greek or ancient Latin and do not trust christian translations of such texts and it is almost impossible to find any non-religious, non-christian, proof for the existence of Jesus Christ. The myth lives on and may still have some power to do some good...but it is undoubtedly a myth. I am not particularly christian in my outlook but then again I do not espouse non-christian ethics. I do like what I read within Taoist texts and incidentally The Tao Te Jing was written by Lao Tse and Lao Tse never existed. Lao Tse means Old Man and implies wisdom...Betty
- Betty
January 20, 2009 5:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
AA is off the mark
There is substantially more evidence for Jesus than any other Jewish man during that time period. That's good enough for me.
- ufcarazy
January 23, 2009 12:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
As Above
Really? I am curious about this "substantial evidence". There is no birth certificate, no record of birth, there certificates or official records of any kind that I know of. I know there are "writings" and "stories". Let me out it like this, there are more stories and writings about Santa Claus than there are for Jesus, thus, I am wondering, who were these poor souls for whom there is even less evidence? Saying "there is evidence" does not magically create this evidence, you have cite the evidence (i.e. tell us who wrote it, when they wrote it, where we can read it or see it, etc). It is no good quoting Biblical sources as your evidence, for as we all know...In early Christianity, there are few materials between the time of Christ's crucifixion (around 30 CE) to the first gospels (after 70 CE). It is as if "people forgot, and then remembered again". Paul does not speak of many historical details of the life of Jesus, e.g. Mary, Judas, etc. Paul doesn't believe that Jesus was ever a human being. In fact, he doesn't even appear to be aware of the idea. I suggest you read your Bible with more awareness.
- Betty
January 28, 2009 12:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here You Go
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php /Existence_Of_Jesus
- ufcarazy
January 28, 2009 2:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I forgot to add this, then remembered again
"Jesus obviously was born, and he did die." - Prof. Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus, lecture 3 time 00:02, The Teaching Co
"the extreme historical skepticism that has marked most Jesus study in this century is abating." - Jesus: A New Vision, Marcus Borg, p. 15
"Classicists have remarked that if the canons for historical reliability that have been erected for the Bible had been required in their studies, our view of the Greco-Roman world (which seems to be reasonably in place) would be in shambles." - The World's Religions, Huston Smith, p. 318.
- ufcarazy
January 28, 2009 2:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I forgot to add this, then remembered again - reponse
Not one of your three references amounts "evidence". They are opinions.
Evidence, for example:
Question:
Did Julius Caeser exist?
Answers:
1. An unflattering portrait of Caesar found near Tusculum, carved during Caesar's own lifetime. Later portraits invariably showed Caesar wearing a laurel crown – to hide his receding hairline.
2. There are coins surviving from the relevant period with Julius Caeser's name and portrait.
3. Contemporary Witnesses to Caesar
i. Cicero - Orations and Letters provide eyewitness evidence of Caesar
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar. In Caesar's struggle with Pompey, Cicero, governor of Cilicia, sided with Pompey but was subsequently pardoned by Caesar.
In March of 44 BC Cicero was a witness to Caesar's murder, though he was not a part of the conspiracy.
Following the assassination, Cicero made a series of speeches known as the "Philippics" which called on the Senate to support Octavian against Mark Antony. Cicero's "Second Phillipics" was an eulogy of Caesar's conquest of Gaul.
Unfortunately for Cicero Octavian reached a temporary rapprochement with Antony, who then ordered Cicero's murder.
Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar.
"... if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state's troops..."
Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC.
ii. Sallust - Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".
iii. Nepos - Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".
iv. Catullus - Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".
v. Asinius Pollio - Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.
vi. Virgil - Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".
vii. Ovid - Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): Metamorphoses".
Near Contemporary Witnesses
i. Velleius Paterculus (c19 BC-32 AD): "Historiae Romanae".
ii. Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39-65 AD) followed the example of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder – a young contemporary of Caesar – who in later life wrote a history of Rome. Lucan wrote his own Pharsalia approximately a century after the civil war it chronicles, using Seneca's work as an eye-witness source.
iii. Plutarch of Chaeronea (45-120 AD) was a Greek moralist, historian and biographer (and priest of Delphi). He wrote his Parallel Lives (matching Greek with Roman lives) during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. He describes in detail the life and assassination of Julius Caesar (as well as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony).
iv. Appian of Alexandria (c.95-165 AD): Civil Wars.
v. The most famous biographer of Caesar, Tranquillus Suetonius, wrote his Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138). Suetonius was in charge of the imperial archives and in this capacity, had access to some of the best possible information.
When you can find "evidence" of that caliber then you have proof. But "Jesus: A New Vision" by Marcus Borg was published in 1991, and not 2,000 years ago. It is not evidence. Likewise, "The World's Religions" by Huston Smith; 1991 (if I have the correct version). I cannot verify your lecturer.
There is no evidence for the existence of anyon called Jesus Christ who did all those things we read about in the Bible. It is a myth. And one based upon many previous versions of the same myth. Tell me, do you think that all those previous telling so this myth were the work of your Devil?
- Betty
January 28, 2009 7:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh brother (sigh)
"Not one of your three references amounts "evidence". They are opinions. "
- They are the professional opinions of individuals who are trained in gathering the evidence and critically evaluated that evidence. I trust their evidence-based opinions oh so much more than I trust the ideology-based opinions of anti-Christians. Further, citing the date of those two books to argue against Jesus is just as logical as citing the date of The Origin of Species to argue against evolution because, as you know, Darwin wasn't around when life developed.
"And one based upon many previous versions of the same myth."
- I do not have sufficient evidence for this hypothesis. Good luck providing me with evidence that I consider adequate. I will be critiquing it according to the very standards anti-rationalists use to argue against the historical Jesus.
Bart Ehrman source: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=643
- ufcarazy
January 28, 2009 10:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh Brother Sigh 2
The whole point of "contemporary evidence" is that it was written down by people who were there. Your three sources were not there. Thank you for your responses. I give up. You win. Jesus existed.
- Betty
January 29, 2009 7:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.