The historical Jesus

[Grave_n_idle]

20 pieces written 100 years later, no, I don't call that evidence. It wasn't uncommon in that times that stories were told from generation to generation. But I'm pretty sure that after 4 or 5 generations the original story was completely different as the last one.

Even the name could be wrong.

While I put virtually no stock in the Bible, the one thing it suggests to us is that a Jew named Jesus probably existed. Just like NNLD said. I doubt the all of the dozens of contributers to the Bible were lying.

Actually - no - it's unlikely that, if the person did exist - he was called 'Jesus'. Joshua, maybe.

Why does it have to be either 'they were all lying' or 'it's true'? Look back the same time period in our own recent history, and see the mythology that has grown around figures like Elivis and Hitler - it doesn't have to be a conspiracy of liars or the gospel truth. Stories just have a way of attaching themselves to one another, and accumulating around a seed figure (like Robin Hood, or King Arthur)... and that seed figure doesn't even have to be a real person (look at the accumulation of stories around Batman or Superman, for example).

[Metaphia]

Get your facts straight Skirrata, Socrates didn't write anything, and there's no solid proof that the people who wrote the Gospels ever met a man called Jesus. They could all be writing variations of a pre-existent mythical narrative, adding their own elements.

[Grave_n_idle]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

There is 'no good evidence' for the vast, vast, vast majority of people who lived two thousand years ago, that doesn't support a conclusion about them not existing. And how can you simultaneously deny a 'Jesus figure', whilst accepting that there were several? When you're analysing merely the 'historical Jesus', the fact that he was one of several who claimed to be the messiah does not negate his existence.

Saying that there were (apparently) several claimants to the title of 'messiah' in the period is less of a leap than saying that any one particular one of the must have existed. Similarly, there is evidence that people did exist 2000 years ago, but a specific person is harder to verify.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is evidence. That is plain and simple fact. My faith in Jesus is evidence that He existed.

Not really. It is only 'evidence' to you - it has no objective merit, it can't be analysed, verified or falsified. If you are asked to bring evidence to the table, and you say 'well, I have faith' - that's not going to qualify as evidence.

[Grave_n_idle]

You misunderstood. You're belief certainly is evidence for the moon being cheesy, though it is not a very convincing evidence, just as my faith should not be very convincing on it's own, but it is, however slight, some evidence.

No, someone believeing the moon is chessy is not evidence that it is cheesy.

[Grave_n_idle]

We know he was a person.

No, we don't.

[JLAEST]

The point is, you can prove no more the existence of anyone that was not a king or so in that time than you can prove Jesus existence. It is normal that there isn't lots of information about him. He was hated by the Roman Empire, center of culture in that time (and from where most writings could come from), and the first century wasn't exactly the "society of information".

[Luporum]

As a representative of the agnostic community; allow me to make our official stand on this controversial issue... "Maybe." That is all. *walks away from the podium*

[Buffett and Colbert]

The point is, you can prove no more the existence of anyone that was not a king or so in that time than you can prove Jesus existence. It is normal that there isn't lots of information about him. He was hated by the Roman Empire, center of culture in that time (and from where most writings could come from), and the first century wasn't exactly the "society of information".

There would be records of him by the Roman Empire. There also would be many other historical documents. And they may not have had computers in their time but things were definitely documented (at least by the Romans).

[Chevzonia]

Jesus (The Nazarene) Historical Jewish geneology, He was in King Davids bloodline- Fact
To let those debate His divinity- Up to you

[Grave_n_idle]

Jesus (The Nazarene) Historical Jewish geneology, He was in King Davids bloodline- Fact
To let those debate His divinity- Up to you

You can say 'fact' all you like. It is the lack of ability to PROVE that 'fact' that is the problem.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Jesus (The Nazarene) Historical Jewish geneology, He was in King Davids bloodline- Fact
To let those debate His divinity- Up to you

Tell us why its fact. Citing sources would be helpful.

[Enadail]

Seeing as how the NE was written mostly by eye witnesses of Jesus, that died at most 20 years later than him, how are the earliest accounts 100 years after jesus?

I'll assume you mean New Testament (I have no idea what NE is). Can you please point to any evidence to suggest that they were eye witness, or that they died within 20 years of him? Specially when most contemporary evidence and analysis suggests this is nowhere near the case?

[Grave_n_idle]

The point is, you can prove no more the existence of anyone that was not a king or so in that time than you can prove Jesus existence. It is normal that there isn't lots of information about him. He was hated by the Roman Empire, center of culture in that time (and from where most writings could come from), and the first century wasn't exactly the "society of information".

If he was 'hated by the Roman Empire', there would be records. Why do you think he was 'hated', anyway?

And, as for the 'first century' not being a 'society of information'... it kinda was, really. Certianly for Rome. The only people MORE anal about keeping every last receipt and ticket were the Egyptians.

[Ravea]

He might have existed; there were plenty of two-bit prophets back then. Maybe Jesus just got lucky. There's always the possibility that he is simply an amalgamation of several different people around the same time period as well. No one can really say for sure, but given how greatly the Jesus figure or character has effected history, I'm willing to bet there was someone that the modern Jesus as modeled after.

[JLAEST]

Making it clear:

Dr. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona write:



“What we have concerning Jesus actually is impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider the critical thesis that other authors wrote the pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we’d have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross. Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within the 150 years: Josephus, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; and probably the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion. In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death.” 6

“…Let’s look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus’ ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke. Compare that to Jesus’ forty-two total sources in the same length of time. That’s more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular non-Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of nine each 7 .” 8

Understand what I mean now? The quantity of information about Jesus is, for that time, not only normal, but really good. Even if it seems few information for us.

[Conserative Morality]

If he was 'hated by the Roman Empire', there would be records. Why do you think he was 'hated', anyway?

And, as for the 'first century' not being a 'society of information'... it kinda was, really. Certianly for Rome. The only people MORE anal about keeping every last receipt and ticket were the Egyptians.

If I remember right, wasn't it the Sanhedrin who hated him? Poor Pilate merely ordered his execution because he wanted to save Roman order (And his own skin) from being destroyed by a rebellion in the area.

Of course, assuming those events happened.

[JLAEST]

After that, Jesus and Christians became hated by the Roman Empire, what lead to romans trying to exterminate the Christians, until Constantine.

[Farnhamia]

The point is, you can prove no more the existence of anyone that was not a king or so in that time than you can prove Jesus existence. It is normal that there isn't lots of information about him. He was hated by the Roman Empire, center of culture in that time (and from where most writings could come from), and the first century wasn't exactly the "society of information".

There would be records of him by the Roman Empire. There also would be many other historical documents. And they may not have had computers in their time but things were definitely documented (at least by the Romans).

Sorry, Buffy, but no. The Romans did keep lots of records, and there probably were records of executions, but we don't have them. The fact that we don't actually have the paperwork isn't proof that he never existed.

@JLAEST: The Roman Empire did not hate Jesus. At the time he is supposed to have lived, the Empire didn't even know he existed. So no, there was no giant Imperial conspiracy to destroy the records of him, if that's what you're getting at. If you put the Crucifixion around 33 AD, the circumstances under which "Christus" or "Chrestus" is mentioned by Suetonius and Tacitus is when they were writing about the fire in Rome under Nero, around 60 AD. 27 years later, in the works of men writing a good 40 years or more after that. And the weren't writing about Jesus himself but his followers.

And before you mention it, the later official persecutions weren't "hate." The Empire simply wanted people to sacrifice to the official cult of the Emperor, which was as close to a State Religion as they had. Christians refused to do so, and so were considered dangerous atheists. It was a matter of law and order, not hate.

EDIT: Rats, you mentioned it.

[Gift-of-god]

The Tacitus quote suffers from one fact. It states that Christians are calle dthat because they follow the teaching of a man named Jesus Christ. But Christ isn't a name. It's Greek for 'anointed one'. Jesus would have had an Aramiac last name.

[JLAEST]

Yes they were. People were killed for a faith. That is hate, genocide, what you want to call it. At some point, Romans understood that Christianity was dangerous to their own traditions and religions, and tried to eliminate it. And, as you can see in my post above, even with that you have MORE sources speaking of Jesus within 150 years of his death than the Roman Emperor at the time!

EDIT: @Gift-of-God, that's true, but it wasn't a name given to many people. So, we may consider it was related to the person we speak of as Jesus, even if Jesus wasn't is real name.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Sorry, Buffy, but no. The Romans did keep lots of records, and there probably were records of executions, but we don't have them. The fact that we don't actually have the paperwork isn't proof that he never existed.

We can go like this all day. There's virtually no proof or disproof for anything.

[Farnhamia]

The Tacitus quote suffers from one fact. It states that Christians are calle dthat because they follow the teaching of a man named Jesus Christ. But Christ isn't a name. It's Greek for 'anointed one'. Jesus would have had an Aramiac last name.

Something along the lines of "son of Joesph," I imagine. But Tacitus would have heard of someone called "Jesus the Annointed One," not "Jesus the son of Joseph" because the early Christians would have refered to him by his title, I think.

[No Names Left Damn It]

It's Greek for 'anointed one'. Jesus would have had an Aramiac last name.

Probably would just have been Ben Joseph, wouldn't it?

[Farnhamia]

Sorry, Buffy, but no. The Romans did keep lots of records, and there probably were records of executions, but we don't have them. The fact that we don't actually have the paperwork isn't proof that he never existed.

We can go like this all day. There's virtually no proof or disproof for anything.

Do you have anything better to do?