No.
-
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?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
Feel free to provide anything from the DSS that in any way serves as evidence, much less proof, of an historical Jesus.
Salek Atesh
Active Member
No part of the bible may be used as proof, eh?? Well that's fine, because the Kitab-i-Iqan says he was a historical figure, therefore it's true!! 
(Sorry, couldn't help myself, just had to jump on that loophole...)
On a serious note:
He probably did. Why do I think so??
Let's assume the early Christians made the whole thing up, and Jesus never existed. Why on earth did they decide to invent a person who never actually existed?? Wouldn't it serve their purposes better to simply have one of their group claim to be the Messiah?? It's only been a few decades since Jesus supposedly lived by this point in time, one would think it risky to invent a false person, since some people might question why, having lived in the places he was said to have created his ministry, they had never seen nor heard of him before.
The early Romans wanted to crush the early Christians. Jesus allegedly lived in a time post-Census. Why didn't the Romans point out that no "Jesus of Nazareth" existed in census records?? It seems like a pretty obvious thing to do to discredit the Christian movement if Jesus did not actually exist.
Why did no contemporaries question Jesus's existence?? Questioning the historical reality of Jesus is a more recent phenomenon. One would think the many enemies of Christianity might try to argue that he did not exist.
I have a lot more questions if I assume Jesus was not a historical figure than I have if I assume he was.
So overall?? Probably. If Rome with its census doesn't see fit to question the existence of this man, when they had every reason to question it, I see no reason to.
(Sorry, couldn't help myself, just had to jump on that loophole...)On a serious note:
He probably did. Why do I think so??
Let's assume the early Christians made the whole thing up, and Jesus never existed. Why on earth did they decide to invent a person who never actually existed?? Wouldn't it serve their purposes better to simply have one of their group claim to be the Messiah?? It's only been a few decades since Jesus supposedly lived by this point in time, one would think it risky to invent a false person, since some people might question why, having lived in the places he was said to have created his ministry, they had never seen nor heard of him before.
The early Romans wanted to crush the early Christians. Jesus allegedly lived in a time post-Census. Why didn't the Romans point out that no "Jesus of Nazareth" existed in census records?? It seems like a pretty obvious thing to do to discredit the Christian movement if Jesus did not actually exist.
Why did no contemporaries question Jesus's existence?? Questioning the historical reality of Jesus is a more recent phenomenon. One would think the many enemies of Christianity might try to argue that he did not exist.
I have a lot more questions if I assume Jesus was not a historical figure than I have if I assume he was.
So overall?? Probably. If Rome with its census doesn't see fit to question the existence of this man, when they had every reason to question it, I see no reason to.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Well, in order to deal with someone as a historical figure, one requires certain kinds of evidence. It could be documentary, physical, or possibly other sorts, but an oral/mythic tradition about them isn't considered historical evidence. Paul Bunyan might be based on a real guy for all we know, but the folktales aren't evidence of anything in particular about him (much less his giant blue ox). We have loads of direct, compelling evidence for the life and career of George Washington, but the fable about his chopping down the cherry tree isn't one of them.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I don't believe in the Jesus that is in the scriptures at all, there was a lot of prophets around that time, and Jesus was one that made into the so called new testament, and then it snowed balled from there to what we have today.
outhouse
Atheistically
Ah yes.
But look at the time period involved. its now 80-90 ish years in the future. Not many living from that time period.
It is also used OT prophecy filling rhetoric, as its main theological goal. Including many OT passages and a parallel of Moses childhood
These are also Matthews version, which written parallels Herod's murder of his sons. So we may have a historical core to it.
outhouse
Atheistically
BUT none of the people reading this was from that area.
They were all far removed from that event.
Its why the gospel authors wrote it. Because it was part of he oral traditions in the diaspora far away from any actual event.
That one is easy to refute. None of the audience would have known it. Different cultures and different geographic locations far far away from the events.
outhouse
Atheistically
Part of the historical problems arise because the authors wrote mythically and steeped in rhetoric prose surrounding the OT religion and prophecies that were quote mined to make Jesus into a messiah, when according to the OT he was not.
They were building divinity and theology to meet their current needs. The gospels reflect these later traditions of belief.
They were building divinity and theology to meet their current needs. The gospels reflect these later traditions of belief.
You overstate your case. Paul, Acts, and Josephus seem to me to provide a more than adequate basis for the provisional assumption of an historical Jesus. The counter argument devolves into silly conspiracy theory and ad hominem.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Doubt that would have meant anything. The census probably didn't have the names of all individuals (not that Jesus was an uncommon name to begin with), nor was it necessarily public record. Nor, if the Romans really thought it would make a difference, were they incapable of making that very argument, regardless of what the census records said. They didn't because they saw it as irrelevant.
Not really how ancient people worked. If there was a tradition around someone, they accepted that that person existed, although they might question some details. When you don't live in a culture so steeped in records and skepticism as ours, your first impulse is to take people's existence for granted.
But overall I agree with your position. I just don't think these arguments in particular are very compelling.
What you believe has absolutely no bearing on whether the DSS provides evidence.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
I thought I'd addressed that above, saying basically this. But in case it wasn't clear: this.
My one point of difference would be Josephus, who is again reporting what he has heard, not unlike Tacitus. He has not direct knowledge of Jesus, just of the existence of his sect.
Paul, on the other hand, is about two degrees away from Jesus, so is possibly relaying second-hand information (which is not to touch on the question of whether he had first-hand mystical knowledge of him, which is outside the scope of this question). That second-hand information of his, from his acquaintance with two of Jesus's disciples, may in fact be the best source we have, historically speaking.
Acts, like the Gospels, is at least one more step removed. Not worthless by any means, but third- or fourth-hand evidence at the very best. Modern historians would look askance at it, but in ancient history sometimes that's the best you get.
Last edited:
Good for you.
It makes no difference. The James reference remains evidence (although certainly not proof).
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Evidence of what ?.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Ah, I see. Quite right.
outhouse
Atheistically
TO me it is evidence of how massively steeped in rhetoric Pauls writings were.
He wanted desperately to be taken as a real apostle, and his writing surround this need.
This reference is heavily debated from all corners, I personally avoid it like that plague for a historical reference as its not needed. It is to controversial to place any weight.
outhouse
Atheistically
But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)
As I read this I see nothing but 100% rhetoric, to associate himself who real apostles, as he makes excuses for those that already question his honestly.
I see a possible connection that people may have thought of a brother figure to Jesus.
But a family member I do not see, as much as one with god a Christian brother revered in Jerusalem.
I don't lie! is over the top for me.
Other relationships
Also, Jesus and James could be related in some other way, not strictly "cousins", following the non-literal application of the term adelphos and the Aramaic term for brother.[36] According to the apocryphal First Apocalypse of James, James is not the earthly brother of Jesus, but a spiritual brother [39] who according to the Gnostics "received secret knowledge from Jesus prior to the Passion".[40]
As I read this I see nothing but 100% rhetoric, to associate himself who real apostles, as he makes excuses for those that already question his honestly.
I see a possible connection that people may have thought of a brother figure to Jesus.
But a family member I do not see, as much as one with god a Christian brother revered in Jerusalem.
I don't lie! is over the top for me.
Other relationships
Also, Jesus and James could be related in some other way, not strictly "cousins", following the non-literal application of the term adelphos and the Aramaic term for brother.[36] According to the apocryphal First Apocalypse of James, James is not the earthly brother of Jesus, but a spiritual brother [39] who according to the Gnostics "received secret knowledge from Jesus prior to the Passion".[40]
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I think that Jesus very probably did exist, and I base this upon the Gospel of Mark, which, when its evangelical exaggeration is thinned out does give the best reports, and may be based upon the memoirs of Cephas.
Josephus's entries help to support a historic Jesus. But I am in doubt about which Jesus was executed on Pilate's orders. Two Jesus's got into trouble in Jerusalem that week, one for killing during a riot, the other for demonstrating and picketing in the Temple Courts. Both were arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to Death. Pilate's wife clearly warned him about one Jesus, and he clearly felt empathy for that same one.
It is said that he pardoned one, and I am very interested in the report that he had the other condemned one whipped bloody, and deliberately had his features smothered in blood from a thorn-crown. He may have executed the Jesus (Barabbas) that he appeared to pardon.
This would then fit with other reports of a Jesus travelling to Galilee soon after the incidents, a Jesus travelling to Kashmir, etc etc.
It could also fit with some members differing ideas about what Jesus was like. and NT reports show one Jesus who wanted his followers to arm themselves, another who could well have been a 'heal for meal wanderer, etc.
I like the fact that you have asked us NOT to mimic and sheepishly follow 'the scholars', because their opinions do differ over many aspects of HJ.