• 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
oldbadger said:
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.
Click to expand...
I sincerely thank you for your informative response. I agree, and I also appreciate the sentiments. it frustrates me when people rely on so-called scholarly opinion in an effort to avoid having to actually prove their argument.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
leibowde84 said:
I sincerely thank you for your informative response. I agree, and I also appreciate the sentiments. it frustrates me when people rely on so-called scholarly opinion in an effort to avoid having to actually prove their argument.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the 'like' and your response.
I do read about historian's, archaeologist's and other academic's opinions and findings, but at the last I do want to form my own opinion. I can understand that some folks just want to follow, auto-accept and parrot the 'consensus' of experts, but the experts so often dispute each other's findings that I like to look for myself.

I feel sure that there is much more 'possibility' to be drawn from the available info, and many more ideas to come from the experts. In ten years there'll be all manner of new ;'expertise' on all this. :D
 
J

JoStories

Well-Known Member
KKawohl said:
Bill O'Reilly from Fox News researched & wrote the book, Killing Jesus.
Jesus, even according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, apparently existed & was considered a religious rebel during the three years of his life that the Scriptures have written about.
Click to expand...
Forgive me but I consider Anything that comes of Fox News at best suspect and at worst completely biased. Not, IMO, a credible source of anything.
 
J

JoStories

Well-Known Member
oldbadger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nicely stated and I agree.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
outhouse said:
Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

This shows the quality of which real historians have studied the history involved in the quest for the real man behind the mythology.
Click to expand...
The 'real man' is yet to be found. Sure, it is likely that Jesus existed - but to imagine we have found that historical figure is mistaken. We do not know even the year he was born or where with any certainty, we have no provenance.
What the real historians say is, "Well it seems likely that Jesus was based on one or more real historical figures." Whilst the devout claim that his historicity has been established - which is to say the least optimistic.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
JoStories said:
No what? That a man similar to or who was actually jesus lived? I gave my opinion.
Click to expand...
You did more than that: you made a wholly unsupported claim, specifically that:
…[in] several sources, such as Tacitus, and less so, Josephus, etc. there are clear and most likely accurate enough documents to prove [emphasis added - JS] that someon like this did exist.
Click to expand...
Tacitus proves nothing other than the existence of a Christian movement. There are two Josephus references, one widely considered to be an interpolation and the other - while (IMO) useful as supportive evidence - does not come close to constituting proof of anything.
 
J

JoStories

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
You did more than that: you made a wholly unsupported claim, specifically that:
​
Tacitus proves nothing other than the existence of a Christian movement. There are two Josephus references, one widely considered to be an interpolation and the other - while (IMO) useful as supportive evidence - does not come close to constituting proof of anything.
Click to expand...
Then we must agree to disagree. I do agree that the sources are contentious. However there is some....not that word some....some who believe, and we talking here of scholarly work, that believe those sources are evidence.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
JoStories said:
I do agree that the sources are contentious. However there is some....not that word some....some who believe, and we talking here of scholarly work, that believe those sources are evidence.
Click to expand...
So we have "contentious" documents "most likely accurate enough ... to prove and "some … believe those sources are evidence." Got it. Thanks.
 
Vishvavajra

Vishvavajra

Active Member
JoStories said:
Then we must agree to disagree. I do agree that the sources are contentious. However there is some....not that word some....some who believe, and we talking here of scholarly work, that believe those sources are evidence.
Click to expand...
The mention of James' execution in Josephus, yes. The consensus is that it's probably genuine and probably refers to James, the brother of that Jesus. That provides supporting evidence for the existence of Jesus and the fact that he had a brother named James. And if that James was a real person, then that's further support that Peter was a real person (see Paul's claims to have met the two of them). And Peter was another guy who's supposed to have personally known Jesus and followed him. Josephus is a good source because he has no horse in that race.

Josephus's other mention of Jesus is problematic: it's either entirely forged by later Christians or, more likely, been heavily corrupted by them, or possibly by the interpolation of their marginal notes. It's not entirely useless, but by itself it doesn't prove anything. If we can separate Josephus's genuine comments from the interpolations, it might serve as supporting evidence.

Tacitus... not so much. See my comment above. No scholar takes that as direct evidence of Jesus, but rather of stories about Jesus that were circulating in the early 2nd century. Those apologists who point to Tacitus as a historical source for Jesus are playing fast and loose with definitions and/or misrepresenting scholarly standards of evidence. Unfortunately, that's a lot of them.
 
J

JoStories

Well-Known Member
:):):):):)
Vishvavajra said:
The mention of James' execution in Josephus, yes. The consensus is that it's probably genuine and probably refers to James, the brother of that Jesus. That provides supporting evidence for the existence of Jesus and the fact that he had a brother named James. And if that James was a real person, then that's further support that Peter was a real person (see Paul's claims to have met the two of them). And Peter was another guy who's supposed to have personally known Jesus and followed him. Josephus is a good source because he has no horse in that race.

Josephus's other mention of Jesus is problematic: it's either entirely forged by later Christians or, more likely, been heavily corrupted by them, or possibly by the interpolation of their marginal notes. It's not entirely useless, but by itself it doesn't prove anything. If we can separate Josephus's genuine comments from the interpolations, it might serve as supporting evidence.

Tacitus... not so much. See my comment above. No scholar takes that as direct evidence of Jesus, but rather of stories about Jesus that were circulating in the early 2nd century. Those apologists who point to Tacitus as a historical source for Jesus are playing fast and loose with definitions and/or misrepresenting scholarly standards of evidence. Unfortunately, that's a lot of them.
Click to expand...
I never said that those sources were definitive proof. I said that they led me to believe in the historicity of either jesus or someone like him. I do agree about Josephus but not about Tacitus. But as I siad, we can agree to disagree.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
KKawohl said:
Bill O'Reilly from Fox News researched & wrote the book, Killing Jesus.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the issue?
Jesus, even according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, apparently existed & was considered a religious rebel during the three years of his life that the Scriptures have written about.
Click to expand...
Sooo wrong .

:bssquare:22. Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.
source

:bssquare:"Though no New Testament figure is mentioned, the scrolls show the vigorous debate going on among Jews at the time over apocalypticism and messianism - the ideas that the kingdom of God was at hand and that a savior would deliver them to a better life."
source

:bssquare:"Few scholars today claim that any of the Dead Sea Scrolls (“DSS”) date to the time after Christianity was allegedly founded by a “historical” Jesus in the first century of the common era. Indeed, it is agreed that most of the scrolls pre-date the turn of the era and that none of them show any knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity." source

:bssquare:WHAT DO THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS SAY ABOUT JESUS?​

The short answer: Nothing.

Nothing, and the last of the scrolls have been dated to approximately 68 AD, 35 years after the year ascribed to the Crucifixion.
source​
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
So the gospel story has historical merit. Please, do tell.


Today's holy grail is the quest for the historical Jesus, some are convinced that they have found it.
 
Last edited:
JM2C

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
leibowde84 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please follow this link. It’s only about 60 pages.

How certain are we that Jesus was historical? | ReligiousForums.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top