Did Christ really exist ?

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I was an skeptic or liberal Christian I may have said that the gospels are dated from 70 to maybe 130 AD.

In other words, if you were unburdened by faith and forced to rely on other criteria you "may have" dated the gospels later that those who were so encumbered.

I would really recommend that you at least scan Schnelle's The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No they don't have manuscripts or fragments that can be reliably dated to before 70AD.
They wanted to see when the gospel accounts were writtten, based on the internal and external evidence (without making any assumptions about prophecy one way or the other) and they came up with pre 70AD dates because of the evidence.

That seems to be a weird way of phrasing it. Normally, when a written work makes reference to a historical event, this is evidence that the work was written after the event.

It was the more modern Higher Criticism scholars who put in the assumption that post 70AD was a must,,,,,,,,,,,,,they meaning they had to ignore the internal and external evidence.

Again: what evidence?

And it's not just a matter of prophecies and miracle claims. There are other aspects of the Gospels that, IMO, make more sense if they're written after the destruction of the Temple. Take Mark 11:15-19: it works as a commentary on why the Temple was destroyed. OTOH, what the purpose of that passage if it was written before the destruction of the Temple?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some made the claim that Jesus never existed. Even many antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are mythologized history.

Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant said:"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel".

Is it possible that a person who never lived could have affected human history so remarkably?

The ‘Historians History of the World’ says: "The historical result of Jesus' activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth." Even calendars today are based on the year that Christ was born.

Critics however point out that all we know about Jesus is only found in the Bible and that no other records concerning him exist. For instance H.G. Wells wrote:" The old Roman historians ignored Jesus entirely; he left no impress on the historical records of his time. But...is this true?
No, its not.
Respected first century historian who wrote about Christ are:
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "The independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

The Encyclopedia Britannica stated" " Many a modern student have become so preoccupied with conflicting theories about Jesus and the Gospels that they have neglected to study these basic sources (the Gospels) by themselves."

What is true is that most that we know about Jesus was recorded by his first-century followers. Their reports have been preserved in the Gospels.

God himself commanded: "Listen to him".
Why would we want to listen to anyone else ?

Yes, the simplest explanation is that there was an historical Jesus. But you're not going to find out much about him from the NT, as the gospels are just mythological fan-fiction written in the style of a narrative by unknown authors using pseudonyms. He seems to have just been a devout Jew leading a reform movement who pissed off Rome and got executed for it. Then his followers couldn't accept that and came up with the notion that he rose from the dead. Most likely, his body was stolen.

 

[Clara Tea]

Letters of well known contemporary figures mentioned Jesus. Was he the Messiah? Jews had an ancient text that predicted the coming of a Messiah. Jews were experts in their own language and their own religion and their own prophecies, and Christians were not. Therein lies disagreement. Jews, hearing of miracles of Jesus, assumed that he was a wizard or magician and therefore evil. Jews didn't believe that Jesus fulfilled their prophecy of a Messiah.

 

[wellwisher]

Most scholars of antiquity are in agreement that Jesus existed, particularly that He was an itinerant Jewish preacher, was baptised and crucified. Unfortunately there are no documents from anyone we can reliabily identify as having been an eyewitness to the events recorded in the four Gospels. There isn't agreement as to who wrote the Gospel accounts. It is important to be aware of the limitations of available records if we are serious about establishing facts as opposed to making statements regarding religious belief.

One of the problems was Jesus was a perceived enemy of both the Jewish and Roman States. Enemies of the state do not get glorified within the official historical writings. Instead, Jesus would have been subject to misinformation and the cancel culture of his time, since to give him any credit would be counter productive to the goal of eliminating his influence. The death penalty shows Jesus was dealing with some and desperate and heartless people who do not play but the rules.

A good modern loose analogy of those times, would be expecting Liberal scholars to sing the praises of Trump, since Trump accomplished so many things. The fake news accounts were always backwards to this. Instead, one would get misinformation to downplay anything that would make his position and supporters more determined.

The New testament was written almost two hundred years later, since the speech police and cancel mob was ready to pounce. Christians were being killed just for admitting they were Christians. Yet the stories spread and the numbers grew. Christianity was the religion of the slaves, so who writes about the slaves?

This early Christian faith, in the face of evil, paid off by the 4th century. The Emperor Constantine noticed that the Christians were the best soldiers in the empire. They fought with faith and without fear. As a gesture and reward, he make Christianity the official religion of Rome. He must have figures maybe their faith would rub off on the rest of the armies. This is where historians begin to keep better records; Holy Roman Empire or Catholic Church. But there was that gap from death to then, when cancel culture and misinformation ruled the day.

 

[firedragon]

From this site below I got the following quote:
When Were the Gospels Written?

>>>Because of the lack of original texts, it has been very difficult to date the canonical gospels as to when they were written or even when they first emerge in the historical record, as these two dates may differ. The gospels have been dated variously from shortly after the crucifixion, traditionally placed around 30 ad/ce, to as late as a century and a half afterwards.[1] The currently accepted dates are as follows, from the earliest by conservative, believing scholars to the latest by liberal and sometimes secular scholars:

Matthew: 37 to 100 ad/ce

Mark: 40 to 73 ad/ce

Luke: 50 to 100 ad/ce

John: 65 to 100 ad/ce<<<

Since I know that the later dates (68 onwards) are based on the assumption that prophecy does not happen and so need to ignore much internal and external evidence for the early dating, I put that the synoptic gospels are dated between 20 and 40 years after Jesus death.
If I was an skeptic or liberal Christian I may have said that the gospels are dated from 70 to maybe 130 AD.

This dating is wrong.

See, do you know who you are quoting Brian? You are quoting a pseudo scholar who believes Jesus was a completely fabricated story.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Letters of well known contemporary figures mentioned Jesus. Was he the Messiah? Jews had an ancient text that predicted the coming of a Messiah. Jews were experts in their own language and their own religion and their own prophecies, and Christians were not. Therein lies disagreement. Jews, hearing of miracles of Jesus, assumed that he was a wizard or magician and therefore evil. Jews didn't believe that Jesus fulfilled their prophecy of a Messiah.

Name one contemporary of well known contemporary figures with Jesus who wrote about him. Have you even read this thread?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is little reason to think the early Christians were any less delusional than their modern day counterparts on the matter.

One reason is the bible itself. The written record has no original in existence. It could all be a fraud for all we know.

Another is the early Christians were rarely documented in roman archeological record as being anything significant past the mythology of the day.

It is creepy that we know next to nothing about the first few centuries of Christianity. There's just a...gap. Very strange.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That seems to be a weird way of phrasing it. Normally, when a written work makes reference to a historical event, this is evidence that the work was written after the event.


Again: what evidence?

And it's not just a matter of prophecies and miracle claims. There are other aspects of the Gospels that, IMO, make more sense if they're written after the destruction of the Temple. Take Mark 11:15-19: it works as a commentary on why the Temple was destroyed. OTOH, what the purpose of that passage if it was written before the destruction of the Temple?

As but one example ...

Jesus's action in the temple should be understood against the backdrop of the apocalyptic currents of his time. Jewish literature from the late Second Temple period testifies to intense speculations concerning the end time in which the temple played a central role. Common for these apocalyptic scenarios was that the temple would become perfect as a true dwelling place for God, whether in a renewed form or as a new building (after destruction). Coupled with these predictions is the critique, inspired by prophets such as Ezekiel, that the priest- hood was corrupt and the temple defiled. Although these accusations came to the fore in connection with the Maccabean crisis with its infamous defilement of the temple by Antiochus, they were reinterpreted by later generations as pertaining to their own time. Thereby, there was an apocalyptic anticipation that the temple would become defiled in the eschaton. A critique against the priesthood is a well-known motif in the sectarian literature from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is noteworthy that the accusations of the worst kind of defilements of the temple belong to the latest phase of the sectarian writings. I outlined a trajectory from disputes relating to specific halakic issues belonging to an early phase, to general and overall exaggerated charges of a later period. One important factor behind this development is the anticipation of the defilement of the temple, which belongs to the final age before Goďs visitation when humanity is under the sway of Belial. In other words, the temple was supposed to become defiled and hence it was perceived as though it was. I have argued that Jesus's action is intelligible from this perspective. Anticipating the defilement and destruction of the temple as part of the end time scenario, Jesus enacted its demise symbolically by attacking people and things. It is inconceivable that Jesus would have acted in this way without being angry about something, without protesting against current practice. Instead he undoubtedly protested against the current defiled state of temple practice, although we cannot know if there was a specific aspect at which he aimed his anger. Thus, in broad strokes Jesus's views on the temple are reminiscent of those of the Qumran movement. Like the Qumran sectarians, Jesus would have perceived the temple as defiled and expected a new perfect temple to take its place, and the priests were doomed to fail regardless of their conduct.

The Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting Jesus's Action in the Temple
Author(s): Cecilia Wassen
Source: Dead Sea Discoveries , 2016, Vol. 23, No. 3, Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity (2016)​

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is creepy that we know next to nothing about the first few centuries of Christianity. There's just a...gap. Very strange.

Its a reason I find it so suspicious that there is nothing to speak of. Nothing. Its just an information void.

The only answer I get for the greater part is oral history, but can anyone really orate the Bible completely from memory and still be accurate over decades if not centuries without losing that originality?

Its already been proven literary drift occurs even with the written record.

 

[stvdv]

Some made the claim that Jesus never existed.

Did Christ really exist ?

IMHO:

Kind of a funny claim, that Jesus never existed
Jesus exists even NOW and can appear IF you pray
So, for me there is no doubt that Jesus existed in the past too

 

[Dawnofhope]

One of the problems was Jesus was a perceived enemy of both the Jewish and Roman States. Enemies of the state do not get glorified within the official historical writings. Instead, Jesus would have been subject to misinformation and the cancel culture of his time, since to give him any credit would be counter productive to the goal of eliminating his influence. The death penalty shows Jesus was dealing with some and desperate and heartless people who do not play but the rules.

A good modern loose analogy of those times, would be expecting Liberal scholars to sing the praises of Trump, since Trump accomplished so many things. The fake news accounts were always backwards to this. Instead, one would get misinformation to downplay anything that would make his position and supporters more determined.

The New testament was written almost two hundred years later, since the speech police and cancel mob was ready to pounce. Christians were being killed just for admitting they were Christians. Yet the stories spread and the numbers grew. Christianity was the religion of the slaves, so who writes about the slaves?

This early Christian faith, in the face of evil, paid off by the 4th century. The Emperor Constantine noticed that the Christians were the best soldiers in the empire. They fought with faith and without fear. As a gesture and reward, he make Christianity the official religion of Rome. He must have figures maybe their faith would rub off on the rest of the armies. This is where historians begin to keep better records; Holy Roman Empire or Catholic Church. But there was that gap from death to then, when cancel culture and misinformation ruled the day.

The Gospels were written between 66 and 110 AD by Christians based on the stories they had heard about the life and Teachings of Christ. Jesus was mentioned by a few other historians within a century His crucifixion such as Josephus and Tacitus. Some of what Josephus wrote is considered authentic while one passage is considered a later interpolation. Other contemporary historians such as Philo (Jewish) made no mention of Jesus at all. These are the agreed on facts.

 

[Skywalker]

Not. This 'fulfilment' is a Christian interpolation.

Job believed that the Messiah was a Redeemer and the Old Testament presents the Messiah as an Advocate and a Mediator.

 

[Skywalker]

Jesus surely lived, otherwise why would Mohammad talk about him. Did Mohammad ever say that Jesus was fiction?

Jesus in the Bible is based on historical events. People saw Jesus after His resurection. The Isa in the Koran is based off of folklore like the apocryphal gospels.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they are lovely Jews -- I love how they invite Jews to become more observant in a spirit of love without coming across as condemning or holier than thou. I love to attend Chabad for shabbat whenever I can. And the Rebbe is an inspiration to me. But in terms of the Rebbe being the Messiah, this is considered a heretical belief. No messiahs that don't fulfill the prophecies!!!!

So they're still waiting for him to rise from the grave?

 

[YoursTrue]

Would you please elaborate on this?

It's unclear whether you are claiming that Josephus did not refer to Jesus, or simply that he did not refer to Jesus twice. Furthermore, "he definitely used the Gospels as the source for the references that he almost certainly did not make" strikes me as a curious claim.

OK, well IndigoChild said that the early church(es?) were started by the apostles, and proof that the apostles existed. Do you believe that, btw? I will ask IndigoChild what apostles is she talking about, and which church(es?) did they start.

 

[Skywalker]

OK, well IndigoChild said that the early church(es?) were started by the apostles, and proof that the apostles existed. Do you believe that, btw? I will ask IndigoChild what apostles is she talking about, and which church(es?) did they start.

The apostle Paul was a church planter.

 

[YoursTrue]

None were, they are all myths founded by men. Moses is considered a myth in scholarship but a story that was needed by those people, as explained by Carol Myers:

"We can understand how mnemohistory works by looking at how it operates in more recent periods. We see this, for instance, in legends about figures in American history—George Washington is a wonderful example. Legends have something historic in them but yet are developed and expanded. I think that some of the accounts of the ancestors in the book of Genesis are similar. They are exciting, important, attention-grabbing, message-bearing narratives that are developed around characters who may have played an important role in the lives of the pre-Israelite ancestors.

The Moses of the Bible is larger than life. The Moses of the Bible is a diplomat negotiating with the pharaoh; he is a lawgiver bringing the Ten Commandments, the Covenant, down from Sinai. The Moses of the Bible is a military man leading the Israelites in battles. He's the one who organizes Israel's judiciary. He's also the prophet par excellence and a quasi-priestly figure involved in offering sacrifices and setting up the priestly complex, the tabernacle. There's virtually nothing in terms of national leadership that Moses doesn't do. And, of course, he's also a person, a family man.

Now, no one individual could possibly have done all that. So the tales are a kind of aggrandizement. He is also associated with miracles—the memorable story of being found in a basket in the Nile and being saved, miraculously, to grow up in the pharaoh's household. And he dies somewhere in the mountains of Moab. Only God knows where he's buried; God is said to have buried him. This is highly unusual and, again, accords him a special place.
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS
Of course the Israelite stories/religion would say their God gave them the rules and they were special and so on? And would put down competing nations.

I believe Moses and Job and others in the Bible were NOT mythical figures. But I'd sure be curious as to what those holding to the Jewish faith here believe. Further, Moses as the one bringing the Ten Words, or commandments to the Israelites, did not negotiate them. God Almighty gave them to Moses directly. No negotiations. Yes, Moses did all the things he wrote about that he did.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Jesus in the Bible is based on historical events. People saw Jesus after His resurection. The Isa in the Koran is based off of folklore like the apocryphal gospels.

 

[Skywalker]

The apocryphal gospels influenced the stories of Jesus in the Koran.