• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Anyone from any religion is welcome to join in on the discussion, but I have a few rules that everyone must follow. If you do not want to adhere to these rules, please be respectful and refrain from commenting. Thanks so much for your input and respect to the nature of this discussion:

1. Do not refer to one part of the Bible as proof for any validity of any other part of the Bible. We are trying to be objective here.

2. Do not make claims stating that "Biblical Scholars agree ..." This is nothing but a cop-out, and I would like to discuss the actual evidence that might lead those Scholars to agree in the first place.

3. No claims without sufficient evidence to back them up. You cannot just say things like "everyone knows".

4. Finally, there is absolutely NO CLAIMING THAT ANY OPINION SHARED MAKES THE HOLDER OF THAT PERSON ANY LESS OF A DECENT PERSON. Let's be adults and keep this one clean.

If you don't like the rules, please avoid the thread. Thanks so much. I look forward to the discussion.
 
jeager106

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
The only reasonable one I found is:

"CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen
Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the
hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius."Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of
Rome also." Annals XV, 44
source

The Annals (Tacitus)/book 15, # 44

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
source​
 
`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Ahhhhhhh.....Could we only believe Saul....the answer would be there.
I think the apostles were too old, but some memories from them could be trusted.
I personally think that Jesus walked and talked, but why didn't he write anything ?
That's the burning question in my mind, all that study of scriptures,
all the sermons delivered to the Jews, not a single word written.
I guess like the Father of all, he could not write, but he read the psalms.
Oh well, we'll never know, will we ?
Yes, I think he lived as a man, and died wanting.
~
'mud
 
N

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
I say yes or rather "most probably". Between the account of Tacitus and the general notion that all legends, myths & such are based on some grain of truth, I think it's safe to say that there was some kind of individual(or perhaps a few of them) fitting the description of the Nazarene.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Oh my … an Historical Jesus thread. I don't think I've seen one of these around here for weeks.

It's interesting that you seem unwilling to play by your own rules and actually take a position. :)
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Oh my … an Historical Jesus thread. I don't think I've seen one of these around here for weeks.

It's interesting that you seem unwilling to play by your own rules and actually take a position. :)
Click to expand...
I'm waiting to express my opinion. Wanted to let the conversation start organically without leading it too much. This is a relatively new topic for me, but I've been listening to a lot of lectures/debates about it recently. Thought I might be able to learn a thing or two from you all on this forum.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
leibowde84 said:
1. Do not refer to one part of the Bible as proof for any validity of any other part of the Bible.
Click to expand...

As long as you understand the bible is not devoid of historical data, that's OK.

And that some text do in fact help provide historicity to other parts. Caution must be used and explained, but your wrongfully handicapping the credible process.

leibowde84 said:
and I would like to discuss the actual evidence that might lead those Scholars to agree in the first place.
Click to expand...

Part of the evidence is that the current hypothesis of a martyred Aramaic Galilean from Nazareth who traveled and taught after taking over Johns movement was killed in the temple at Passover for causing trouble in the temple. Is the only hypothesis that explains the evidence we do have.

The gospels and Josephus and Tacitus are the evidence here.

The strength of the evidence in the gospels while not strong does explain events within a few decades. Most mythological cores generally are talking about events hundreds of year sin the past where the mythology is much thicker.

Other evidence is that no one from jesus time denounced his existence in any way shape or form, not even his enemies said he was made up.

Evidence here is the ability to use logic and reason to evaluate the evidence, and those with this education are the ones who make said decisions.

The man has historicity, so if you question this, then YOU need to provide a credible replacement hypothesis that explains the evidence we do have.

leibowde84 said:
. Do not make claims stating that "Biblical Scholars agree ..." This is nothing but a cop-out
Click to expand...

No it is not.


What ends up happening YOUR way, is that it gives fringe conspiracy, tinfoil hat wearing methodology equal footing if we cant say REAL historians do not follow that position.

Not really fair is it.

Its like saying uneducated opinions count equally to the brightest minds. They factually do not.
 
jonathan180iq

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
outhouse said:
It has a great consensus of what educated people think. As a strong an atheist as they get. I find value there.
Click to expand...
So do I - what I dislike are their home-made "What the skeptics say" question and their explanation to those questions. It's quite self serving. They'd do better to just leave it out.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
jonathan180iq said:
So do I - what I dislike are their home-made "What the skeptics say" question and their explanation to those questions. It's quite self serving. They'd do better to just leave it out.
Click to expand...
So, if I understand you correctly, you much prefer people who rely on their own biases and presuppositions than those who rely on scholarship - so long as those presuppositions match yours. Yes?
 
Sapiens

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Perhaps you might wish to start here

Yeah, we done this one to death a bunch of times, no need to demonstrate resurrection.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
outhouse said:
As long as you understand the bible is not devoid of historical data, that's OK.

And that some text do in fact help provide historicity to other parts. Caution must be used and explained, but your wrongfully handicapping the credible process.



Part of the evidence is that the current hypothesis of a martyred Aramaic Galilean from Nazareth who traveled and taught after taking over Johns movement was killed in the temple at Passover for causing trouble in the temple. Is the only hypothesis that explains the evidence we do have.

The gospels and Josephus and Tacitus are the evidence here.

The strength of the evidence in the gospels while not strong does explain events within a few decades. Most mythological cores generally are talking about events hundreds of year sin the past where the mythology is much thicker.

Other evidence is that no one from jesus time denounced his existence in any way shape or form, not even his enemies said he was made up.

Evidence here is the ability to use logic and reason to evaluate the evidence, and those with this education are the ones who make said decisions.

The man has historicity, so if you question this, then YOU need to provide a credible replacement hypothesis that explains the evidence we do have.



No it is not.


What ends up happening YOUR way, is that it gives fringe conspiracy, tinfoil hat wearing methodology equal footing if we cant say REAL historians do not follow that position.

Not really fair is it.

Its like saying uneducated opinions count equally to the brightest minds. They factually do not.
Click to expand...
By the last rule I just meant don't leave it at that. Provide an explanation for the concensus. That's all. And, BTW I do strongly believe that Jesus exisisted. Just wanted to get some more insight before commenting.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Apparently …


This is a debate forum. Please feel free to take a position and debate it (rather than simply instructing us on how to do so).


Perhaps you might wish to start here
Click to expand...
No need to get your panties in a bunch buddy. Chill out. You don't have to comment if you do that want to.
 
jonathan180iq

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
So, if I understand you correctly, you much prefer people who rely on their own biases and presuppositions than those who rely on scholarship - so long as those presuppositions match yours. Yes?
Click to expand...
Come again?

The response to the very generic "skeptics say..." section doesn't bother to address actual skepticism of the evidences provided. They have cherry-picked the easiest rebuttals and given self-serving answers for the layperson. That's not exactly an accurate sample of "what the skeptics say" is it?

My point, if you would like to understand me correctly, was that they would have been better off simply presenting their evidences and then leaving out the rebuttals section altogether - which is exactly what I stated the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top