Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Niatero]

Yes, that's what these guys go into.

Okay. I remember now the name Vermes coming up in my reading about historical methodology.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Logical inference is a form of evidence. In US law some implications which are based on facts are called ultimate facts. It doesn't matter if the process can be described as theology so long as the reasoning is valid.

Right, but logical inferences (A -> B, A, therefore B) are empty, they contain no new information only tell us how certain propositions relate to one another. In order to refute a fact, one needs evidence... theology is insufficient. Unless now you're suggesting we get especially permissive and loosey-goosey about what counts as "theological". Theology can't disprove facts. Facts can disprove theology, but theology must always take the facts as they are.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Which one?

(later) Apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah, prophet of social change, wisdom Sage, Galilean Rabbi, marginal Jew, Teacher of Righteousness, or some other?

Scholars overwhelmingly agree Jesus was a religious Jew and an apocalypticist, although that doesn't preclude his being charismatic or a prophet of social change. So far as we can tell, the historical Jesus was an apocalypticist and everything else about his mission- his ethics, his social or political views (if he had any), etc.- followed from that

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Can you list the items of evidence outside of the Bible that are considered as evidence by most historians, or tell me how to find a list? Not all the explanations and arguments, just a list of labels for the evidence. For example, Josephus books 18 and 20; Tacitus book 15; Pliny to Emperor Trajan. Or tell me if you know of any besides what is covered in the Wikipedia article "Sources for the historicity of Jesus."

(later) From what I've seen, the only thing that most historians agree on is that someone with a name that is translated as "Jesus" was crucified in or in or near Jerusalem near the end of the second temple period, and identifying that person with the Jesus of Christianity. The arguments for that look fallacious to me. Not that I don't think it's true, but that the arguments based on writings outside of the Bible look fallacious to me, and I don't think that the reason for historians agreeing on that has anything to do with the validity and relevance of the evidence. I think it's just so that they can make up any story they want to about Jesus and still say that he is the Jesus of Christianity, which serves the interests of story sellers on all sides of all divides. That's also why they have agreed on special rules for writing stories about Jesus, which are mostly blatant and notorious logical fallacies, that they don't apply to any other study of history, and which they use and misuse selectively, to make up any story they want to and call it "history," in their common interest of selling stories saying what one faction or another wants to hear.

Why would a only list items outside of the Bible, when the BIble contains some of the best/strongest evidence we have? Something something special pleading the Bible is a book, or what?

Like, for xmas I got a collection of articles containing arguments for atheism from Oppy, Draper, etc. Are the articles contained within these documents invalidated simply because someone stapled them together into one collection? The authors of the NT did not know one another (in many instances lived miles and decades apart and spoke different languages), did not know they were writing about similar topics, and certainly didn't know that the documents they were writing would one day get collected into a single work. So excluding them on the basis of them being in the Bible is arbitrary and fallacious.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes, he existed and is still in existence in heaven. IMOP

Sure, and fairies wear boots and you gotta believe me

 

[Truthseeker]

For the history of Europe, it isn't important who Jesus really was or what he taught, but what people believed what he was and what he taught.
With what you (think to) know about Jesus, could that explain violent proselytation, the schisms, the crusades, the Vatican, blackmailing of multiple kings, the Spanish inquisition?

That does indicate a distortion of what is present in the New testament.

 

[Heyo]

That does indicate a distortion of what is present in the New testament.

Of course, but those are the things you find in the history books.

 

[Truthseeker]

Of course, but those are the things you find in the history books.

Yes, I got your point. I'm agreeing with you. Sorry I didn't express myself well. The reason was I was in the hospital with Covid at the time, and have trouble communicating here with a cell phone. Now I'm back home. The doctor succumbed to my desire to see the eclipse totality, so I got out of there just a little earlier than what she was initially saying.

 

[Niatero]

Scholars overwhelmingly agree Jesus was a religious Jew and an apocalypticist, although that doesn't preclude his being charismatic or a prophet of social change. So far as we can tell, the historical Jesus was an apocalypticist and everything else about his mission- his ethics, his social or political views (if he had any), etc.- followed from that

I agree that the different views of Jesus are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Niatero]

Why would a only list items outside of the Bible, when the BIble contains some of the best/strongest evidence we have? Something something special pleading the Bible is a book, or what?

Like, for xmas I got a collection of articles containing arguments for atheism from Oppy, Draper, etc. Are the articles contained within these documents invalidated simply because someone stapled them together into one collection? The authors of the NT did not know one another (in many instances lived miles and decades apart and spoke different languages), did not know they were writing about similar topics, and certainly didn't know that the documents they were writing would one day get collected into a single work. So excluding them on the basis of them being in the Bible is arbitrary and fallacious.

I’m not excluding the Bible as a source for writing history. In fact, it’s the only source that looks useful to me for telling stories about Jesus. Also, it might be the best source for telling stories about life in and between Galilee and Judea near the end of the second temple period.

I might have misunderstood what you meant by “overwhelming” when you said “overwhelming evidence.”

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I’m not excluding the Bible as a source for writing history... I might have misunderstood what you meant by “overwhelming” when you said “overwhelming evidence.”

You asked for evidence for Jesus outside the Bible for... no discernible reason. This evidence both being overwhelming and it being overwhelmingly contained in the NT specifically are not mutually exclusive (in fact, they're both true).

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I cant get this to quote your entire post...I've had to post a screen shot instead (sorry about that)

​

Internal Eyewitness​

​

Obviously, the internal evidences are found in the books of the New Testament. With the obvious exception of the apostle Paul, who's revelation came from his experience on the road to Damascus (either vision or angelic visit), the rest of the New Testament is written by eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry.​

​

External Eyewitnesses and evidences of Christ

**these external evidences are published writings of significant figures in history and far greater weight of evidence than evolutionary theory is where there are no human witnesses at all to any of Darwins theory

​

Letter of Quadratus (possibly the first Christian apologist) to emperor Hadrian (who reigned 117 – 138) is likely to have an early date and is reported by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 4.3.2 to have stated:[196]​

"The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times."[197]​

By "our Savior" Quadratus means Jesus and the letter is most likely written before 124 CE.[193] Bauckham states that by "our times" he may refer to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117–124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.[198] Bauckham states that the importance of the statement attributed to Quadratus is that he emphasizes the "eye witness" nature of the testimonies to interaction with Jesus.[197] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus​

​

​

Phlegon AD 140​

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events…but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.”11​

​

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles”12​

​

“We have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.”13​

​

Thallus AD 55​

Thallus was perhaps the earliest non-Christian writer to refer to Jesus. While Thallus’ work has been lost, a fragment was quoted by Julius Africanus around AD 220, which itself was quoted by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus in his Chronicle (ca. AD 800)​

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” ​

Mara Bar Serapion AD 73​

What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews by killing their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.​

Pliny the Younger AD 112​

Others, whose names were given me by an informer, first said that they were Christians and afterwards denied it, declaring that they had been but were so no longer, some of them having recanted many years before, and more than one so long as twenty years back. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the deities, and cursed the name of Christ. But they declared that the sum of their guilt or their error only amounted to this, that on a stated day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak and to recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god, and that so far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, their oath was to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, and from breach of faith, and not to deny trust money placed in their keeping when called upon to deliver it.​

Suetonius AD 120 (letter from Julius Caesar to the emperor Domitian)​

“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from Rome.”​

​

Josephus AD 93 (Testimonium Flavianum)​

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.​

Tacitus AD 116​

“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 Judæa, 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.​

Jesus was so well-known within a century that word of him likely reached no less than seven Roman emperors: Claudius, who evicted Christians from Rome, Nero, who persecuted Christians; Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, under whose patronage Josephus wrote; and Trajan, who replied to Pliny. Top Ten Historical References to Jesus Outside of the Bible​

​

 

[Niatero]

You asked for evidence for Jesus outside the Bible for... no discernible reason.

I can try to explain my reason if you'd like to know.

(later) Do you know of anything in any historian's story of Jesus, other than him being crucified, that isn't contested by other historians?

 

[Niatero]

I cant get this to quote your entire post...I've had to post a screen shot instead (sorry about that)

View attachment 90284

​

Internal Eyewitness​

​

Obviously, the internal evidences are found in the books of the New Testament. With the obvious exception of the apostle Paul, who's revelation came from his experience on the road to Damascus (either vision or angelic visit), the rest of the New Testament is written by eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry.​

​

External Eyewitnesses and evidences of Christ

**these external evidences are published writings of significant figures in history and far greater weight of evidence than evolutionary theory is where there are no human witnesses at all to any of Darwins theory

​

Letter of Quadratus (possibly the first Christian apologist) to emperor Hadrian (who reigned 117 – 138) is likely to have an early date and is reported by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 4.3.2 to have stated:[196]​

"The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times."[197]​

By "our Savior" Quadratus means Jesus and the letter is most likely written before 124 CE.[193] Bauckham states that by "our times" he may refer to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117–124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.[198] Bauckham states that the importance of the statement attributed to Quadratus is that he emphasizes the "eye witness" nature of the testimonies to interaction with Jesus.[197] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus​

​

​

Phlegon AD 140​

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events…but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.”11​

​

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles”12​

​

“We have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.”13​

​

Thallus AD 55​

Thallus was perhaps the earliest non-Christian writer to refer to Jesus. While Thallus’ work has been lost, a fragment was quoted by Julius Africanus around AD 220, which itself was quoted by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus in his Chronicle (ca. AD 800)​

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” ​

Mara Bar Serapion AD 73​

What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews by killing their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.​

Pliny the Younger AD 112​

Others, whose names were given me by an informer, first said that they were Christians and afterwards denied it, declaring that they had been but were so no longer, some of them having recanted many years before, and more than one so long as twenty years back. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the deities, and cursed the name of Christ. But they declared that the sum of their guilt or their error only amounted to this, that on a stated day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak and to recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god, and that so far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, their oath was to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, and from breach of faith, and not to deny trust money placed in their keeping when called upon to deliver it.​

Suetonius AD 120 (letter from Julius Caesar to the emperor Domitian)​

“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from Rome.”​

​

Josephus AD 93 (Testimonium Flavianum)​

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.​

Tacitus AD 116​

“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 Judæa, 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.​

Jesus was so well-known within a century that word of him likely reached no less than seven Roman emperors: Claudius, who evicted Christians from Rome, Nero, who persecuted Christians; Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, under whose patronage Josephus wrote; and Trajan, who replied to Pliny. Top Ten Historical References to Jesus Outside of the Bible​

​

Thanks. This answers the question that I was asking Enai de a lukal.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I can try to explain my reason if you'd like to know.

(later) Do you know of anything in any historian's story of Jesus, other than him being crucified, that isn't contested by other historians?

By all means. But I'm really hoping its more interesting than the usual tripe about how it doesn't count because its in the Bible, so fingers crossed.

And the answer to your question probably depends on just how liberally we're using the term "historian". Do evangelicals count? There is broad agreement about the existence of the historical Jesus, the general facts of his life, and his death and impact. Are there disputes? Of course. Does that amount to a refutation of the scholarship? Of course not.

 

[Niatero]

By all means. But I'm really hoping its more interesting than the usual tripe about how it doesn't count because its in the Bible, so fingers crossed.

And the answer to your question probably depends on how just liberally we're using the term "historian". Do evangelicals count?

I mean people with degrees in history when they are doing research and writing about it honestly and responsibly. It doesn't exclude evangelicals.

I wouldn't call any evidence "overwhelming" if there are honest and responsible historians who aren't convinced by it. In many hours of watching discussions and reading, I haven't seen or heard of anything that any historian says about a historical Jesus, other than him being crucified, that isn't contested by other historians, and the only evidence that all of them agree on for that is outside of the Bible.

(later) I haven't seen or heard of anything in the Bible that all historical Jesus historians agree on as evidence for saying anything about a historical Jesus.

For me to call the evidence for the existence of Jesus "overwhelming" there would have to be a lot of evidence that most historians agree on as evidence for his existence. Now that I think of it, is there actually anything in the Bible that any historian considers as evidence for his existence? That's different from using the Bible to write stories about him. That presupposes his existence, but is not evidence for it. Is there anything in the Bible that any historian uses as an argument for saying that he existed?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I wouldn't call any evidence "overwhelming" if there are honest and responsible historians who aren't convinced by it

Then you can't call any evidence overwhelming. There are always fringe positions, and they are not always or necessarily held by crackpots.

In many hours of watching discussions and reading, I haven't seen or heard of anything that any historian says about a historical Jesus, other than him being crucified, that isn't contested by other historians, and the only evidence that all of them agree on for that is outside of the Bible.

Um, ok? Its history, not chemistry; so what?

I haven't seen or heard of anything in the Bible that all historical Jesus historians agree on as evidence for saying anything about a historical Jesus.

Really? I doubt that. All Biblical scholars agree that the attestation of Jesus in the Gospels is evidence for the existence of Jesus. They will all also state the fact that these are multiple attestations is evidence for thee existence of a historical Jesus. Then there's things that like 99.99% would argue, like the fact that the messiah in 1st century Judaism being a glorious conquering figure would preclude Christians inventing stories about Jesus as a crucified criminal. So this ones just wrong, and even if it wasn't, as above it wouldn't amount to anything.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I mean people with degrees in history when they are doing research and writing about it honestly and responsibly. It doesn't exclude evangelicals.

I wouldn't call any evidence "overwhelming" if there are honest and responsible historians who aren't convinced by it. In many hours of watching discussions and reading, I haven't seen or heard of anything that any historian says about a historical Jesus, other than him being crucified, that isn't contested by other historians, and the only evidence that all of them agree on for that is outside of the Bible.

(later) I haven't seen or heard of anything in the Bible that all historical Jesus historians agree on as evidence for saying anything about a historical Jesus

i would argue that in fact most historians have no problem with the historicity of Christ. I think that we are more than adequately able to attest to the fact that Christ 100% really existed at exactly the time the bible says He did and that he was crucified on the cross.

The point of contention centers around the resurrection and ascension. We cannot prove with the same level of certainty that Christ raised from the dead and then ascended into heaven 6 weeks later. That i think is where the distinction between Bart Erhman and Christian scholars becomes apparent. Having said that, there is one significant part of the biblical narrative on the death and ressurection of Christ that one day might well be proven...the raising of other dead people at that time who then wandered back into the city and lived among the population for the remainder of their lives

Matthew 27:52​

The original Koine Greek, according to Westcott and Hort, reads:[1]​

​

καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν,​

In the King James Version of the Bible, it is translated as:​

​

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,​

The modern World English Bible translates the passage as:​

​

The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.​

​

If any eyewitness writings outside of the bible are ever found that describe the raising of dead people who then wander back into the city and live among the people at the time of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, then this would be almost irrefutable evidence that Christ was indeed raised from the dead as well! We have writings outside of the bible that are close to being eyewitness, but not directly...they recite claims by others who were eyewitness.

 

[Niatero]

Really? I doubt that. All Biblical scholars agree that the attestation of Jesus in the Gospels is evidence for the existence of Jesus. They will all also state the fact that these are multiple attestations is evidence for thee existence of a historical Jesus.

Okay, I see. Your definition of "Biblical scholar" excludes anyone who disagrees with that, regardless of their training, experience, honesty and integrity.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Okay, I see. Your definition of "Biblical scholar" excludes anyone who disagrees with that, regardless of their training, experience, honesty and integrity.

this is a good point Niatero and one i agree with entirely.

I agree with you in that i believe it is false to claim that an atheist cannot also be a biblical scholar (Bart Erhamn point and example). I am also of the opinion that a Creationist can be a scientist and indeed an exceptional one at that.