Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Enai de a lukal]

You mean like:


I don't think so.

Yeah, I mean like taking for granted that superatural/divine things do not occur. That is not the place of the historian, to purport to document supernatural occurences. If the theologian wants to come in and talk about that stuff, FINE. But if we're talking about the historical jesus, we are adopting the historian's pespective and the methodology of history, and that includes methodological naturalism.

And the upshot is that the scholarship has converged on the view that there very probably was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, and that he actually led a small, short, and ill-fated mission that ended with his death at the hands of the Romans for the charge of treason (i.e. claiming to be the messiah, i.e. the KIng of Israel- dangerous to crown yourself king when you are under military occupation by another empire).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There is no hard scientific evidence that Jesus existed. References to Jesus that are not scientific exist: Muslims point to the Quran. Ramakrishna had an experience of Jesus. There is a legend in India that Jesus came there. Meher Baba included him as an Avatar. And so forth.

What do you mean by "hard scientific proof"? And do you realize that history is not a "hard science"? The fact is, given the types and strength of the evidence available in literary analysis and archeology are not the same as that available in the hard sciences, and history is obviously limited by the fact that we can't, you know, go back in time to try to experiment again to see if it gets the same results. History already happened, its never coming back, and so the techniques and principles we use to rigorously study history are different than in other fields. As one would expect.

And as far as historical methodology and the relevant evidence goes, there almost certainly was a historical JEsus. The historical (not "hard scientific") evidence is just overwhelming. Of course, he just was nothing like the BIblical character. And this does not make Christianity true, or anything, so its embarrassing for atheism as a whole when mythicists openly deny what has so compelling be established using accepted scholarly methods and using our best and up to date evidence.

 

[Spice]

Well but we sort of are, right? SInce its not like there's two distinct people, we have one person, of whom people say all sorts of conflicting stuff. Either one group is right or the other is, but its one person either wya- it just depends who is right in what they say about him. So its not two people, its one person of whom we have conflicting accounts and so its up to us to sort the plausible from the absurd.

We also get to view this through the lens of the 21st century historian, with all the benefits 2000 years of technology and science has provided. We know now- which they did not know then, and apparently widely believed_ that resurrecting corpuses or performing miracles is not a thing. So all we can do is look for a possible real Jesus, a Jesus who doesn't perform magic but whose followers likely claim that he does. And lo and behold, that's precisely what we find: evidence for a 1st century itinerant Jewish apocalypticist who was crucified by the Romans, and who had a group of followers who liked to make lofty claims about him and established a religion in his name after his death.

But I feel the "lofty" claims were made so his message would be carried and remembered, as well as giving the message importance and distinction as being of God. I believe all the hoopla was needed -- to survive that era and culture.

Just think of the numbers today, who pay their money and stand in line to have hands laid upon them. Granted, IMO, charlatans. However some go along with "the show" to get the attention of unbelievers long enough to catch their ear for a bit of real truth. Not much integrity in the method, but a handful here and there go on to becoming better people for whatever reason.

Now, I certainly don't agree with either situation as they are not ethical, however, would we honestly be talking together, 2000 years later, about a preacher who proclaimed heaven is in our mist if we love and care for one another, if it had not been inflated?

 

[InChrist]

Well but we sort of are, right? SInce its not like there's two distinct people, we have one person, of whom people say all sorts of conflicting stuff. Either one group is right or the other is, but its one person either wya- it just depends who is right in what they say about him. So its not two people, its one person of whom we have conflicting accounts and so its up to us to sort the plausible from the absurd.

We also get to view this through the lens of the 21st century historian, with all the benefits 2000 years of technology and science has provided. We know now- which they did not know then, and apparently widely believed_ that resurrecting corpuses or performing miracles is not a thing. So all we can do is look for a possible real Jesus, a Jesus who doesn't perform magic but whose followers likely claim that he does. And lo and behold, that's precisely what we find: evidence for a 1st century itinerant Jewish apocalypticist who was crucified by the Romans, and who had a group of followers who liked to make lofty claims about him and established a religion in his name after his death.

Those first followers must have been some very uniquely, delusional individuals to have made up stories about a magical man that they actually knew were not true, then to endure tremendous persecution and even suffer death for their wild imaginations.


“It is difficult to exaggerate what a devastating effect the crucifixion must have had on the disciples. They had left everything for him, and now he was dead. They had left everything for him, and now he was dead. They had no conception of a dying, much less rising, Messiah, for Messiah would reign forever (cf. John 12:34). Without prior belief in the resurrection, belief in Jesus as Messiah would have been impossible in view of his death.[2]

Craig argues that without the resurrection the Christian faith could not have come into being. It was the resurrection that turned tragedy into triumph. God had vindicated the person of Jesus Christ by raising him from the dead. Thus, he could be proclaimed as the long-awaited Messiah (Acts 2:32-36). If Jesus had not risen, Paul claims the faith of a Christian is worthless and there is no forgiveness for sins (1 Cor 15:14, 17). But since Jesus has risen salvation is possible (Rom 10:9), without belief in the resurrection, the disciples would have seen Jesus as a failed Messiah (Luke 24:21). They would have returned to their previous jobs and gone on with their lives as before. Craig concludes, “The origin of the Christian Way therefore hinges on the belief of the early disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead.”[3] If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then critics have to posit another explanation to account for the origin of Christian belief.”

https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/were-the-apostles-of-jesus-misguided

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by "hard scientific proof"? And do you realize that history is not a "hard science"?

That's a good point, because various differences are written in history. Not all can be true.

 

[Heyo]

Well but we sort of are, right? SInce its not like there's two distinct people, we have one person, of whom people say all sorts of conflicting stuff. Either one group is right or the other is, but its one person either wya- it just depends who is right in what they say about him. So its not two people, its one person of whom we have conflicting accounts and so its up to us to sort the plausible from the absurd.

Let's talk about Michael Jackson. When you read that name, you have a mental image, don't you? You could list some characteristics to make a police description. Now click on the link.

When you get a description from a believer depicting Jesus, Jew, lived 1 BC to 32 AD, preacher, born by a virgin, lived in Judea, turned water into wine, was crucified, raised the dead, do you ignore half of the description and say "yes, Jesus was a historical figure" or do you say "there is no evidence for such a person"?

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's talk about Michael Jackson. When you read that name, you have a mental image, don't you? You could list some characteristics to make a police description. Now click on the link.

When you get a description from a believer depicting Jesus, Jew, lived 1 BC to 32 AD, preacher, born by a virgin, lived in Judea, turned water into wine, was crucified, raised the dead, do you ignore half of the description and say "yes, Jesus was a historical figure" or do you say "there is no evidence for such a person"?

Interesting question -- I won't attempt to answer it now, but it's still an interesting question.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Let's talk about Michael Jackson. When you read that name, you have a mental image, don't you? You could list some characteristics to make a police description. Now click on the link.

When you get a description from a believer depicting Jesus, Jew, lived 1 BC to 32 AD, preacher, born by a virgin, lived in Judea, turned water into wine, was crucified, raised the dead, do you ignore half of the description and say "yes, Jesus was a historical figure" or do you say "there is no evidence for such a person"?

Well the options here are, right, that either there was no such person, or there was such a person and the things people said about them turned out to be false. The more we look at the textual evidence, the harder it is to aoid the conclusion that there was a man named Jesus, who hda some fanatical followers who said things about him that were false. It does indeed look like there was just such a person, and that they had such followers. Its more complicated than you're making out to being. Was there any person corresponding to the strongest, most miracle-filled accounts handed out by partisans to win converts? Well, no. That person never existed. Or, another equally valid way of looking at it would be to say that the person existed, but people said a bunch of false stuff about them.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Those first followers must have been some very uniquely, delusional individuals to have made up stories about a magical man that they actually knew were not true, then to endure tremendous persecution and even suffer death for their wild imaginations.

Who says they knew they weren't true? Chances are they believed they were true but were simply mistaken. People can and do die for deeply, sincerely held beliefs.. beliefs which are nevertheless false, in many cases.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did Jesus Exist? Video Presentation | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Did Jesus exist Bart Ehrman? I was invited to read my book, "Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Bulls Head Bookshop on Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. Here is a video of the event. Bart…

ehrmanblog.org

I live near UNC,mewt him and listened to some of his talks, and I have a collection of his books.

I share hos view that Jesus of Joshua existed, claimed to be the messiah, and was convicted under the tule of Pontius Pilate, and crucified for Rebellion against Rome for claiming to be the King of the Jews, but beyond this I consider the gospels created biography like many in history of the times. I believe he had a brother James, and likely other siblings, Also there was a simpler gospel some call Q that was used to compile Mark and a book of sayings attributed to Jesus.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's a good point, because various differences are written in history. Not all can be true.

There's also this whole incongruity between history and other fields: if, say, a physicist still has a question, they can run the experiment over again. And over as many times as they like.

History, otoh, is gone. Its not happening again. We can't test out theories against experiment, because that ship has sailed. So historians have a completely different set of rigorous guidelines and procedures for how they deal with teasing out the truth from historical documents. But the up shot is that the textual evidence for the existence of Jesus is about as strong as it could possible be. To the point that most scholars would be genuinely shocked if someday they discovered conclusively evidence there was no such person after all

But, given all our best scholarship and available evidence, the overwhelming scholarly consensus matches the overwhelming body of evidence: Jesus of Nazareth was very probably a real historical person, albeit without the healing powers and divine nature and all that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well the options here are, right, that either there was no such person, or there was such a person and the things people said about them turned out to be false. The more we look at the textual evidence, the harder it is to aoid the conclusion that there was a man named Jesus, who hda some fanatical followers who said things about him that were false. It does indeed look like there was just such a person, and that they had such followers. Its more complicated than you're making out to being. Was there any person corresponding to the strongest, most miracle-filled accounts handed out by partisans to win converts? Well, no. That person never existed. Or, another equally valid way of looking at it would be to say that the person existed, but people said a bunch of false stuff about them.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. I agree there are options to believing what's written. Not sure what you mean by fanatical followers who said things about him that were false.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's also this whole incongruity between history and other fields: if, say, a physicist still has a question, they can run the experiment over again. And over as many times as they like.

History, otoh, is gone. Its not happening again. We can't test out theories against experiment, because that ship has sailed. So historians have a completely different set of rigorous guidelines and procedures for how they deal with teasing out the truth from historical documents. But the up shot is that the textual evidence for the existence of Jesus is about as strong as it could possible be. To the point that most scholars would be genuinely shocked if someday they discovered conclusively evidence there was no such person after all

But, given all our best scholarship and available evidence, the overwhelming scholarly consensus matches the overwhelming body of evidence: Jesus of Nazareth was very probably a real historical person, albeit without the healing powers and divine nature and all that.

It's interesting. To think that Adam and others lived for hundreds of years is reasonable in comparison with at least one Sumerian king I read about who is said to have ruled for 42,000 years. En-men-lu-ana - Wikipedia.

 

[YoursTrue]

Who says they knew they weren't true? Chances are they believed they were true but were simply mistaken. People can and do die for deeply, sincerely held beliefs.. beliefs which are nevertheless false, in many cases.

And that is possibly why Paul, formerly known as Saul, was approached by Jesus in a great blinding light.

 

[InChrist]

Who says they knew they weren't true? Chances are they believed they were true but were simply mistaken. People can and do die for deeply, sincerely held beliefs.. beliefs which are nevertheless false, in many cases.

So you are saying these disciples, as well as others, spend three years with Jesus and just “thought” they saw Him do miracles like; feeding thousands of men, women and children with a few fish and loaves of bread, turn water to wine, heal lepers, the lame, the blind, and more, bring dead people back to life, then they thought they watched Him die by crucifixion, rise from the grave, and imagined they spent time talking, eating and interacting with Him afterwards.

Sure people can die and suffer for deeply held beliefs, but I highly doubt anyone would do so for fake beliefs, lies, and things that they know did not happen.

 

[Esteban X]

So you are saying these disciples, as well as others, spend three years with Jesus and just “thought” they saw Him do miracles like; feeding thousands of men, women and children with a few fish and loaves of bread, turn water to wine, heal lepers, the lame, the blind, and more,

The Gospels were not written by eye witnesses, and as any fisherman will tell you a minnow can become a whale in the re-telling.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think we all know about the controversial writings of The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus and The Annals of Tacitus for example. Some say the parts about Jesus in their writings were forgeries and others think they were authentic. But these men were not even born at the time of the supposed crucifixion of Jesus that happened in 30-33AD. They were born after his death.

The only reason I might believe that Jesus existed 'possibly' is through the Pilate stone finding by archaeologists in 1961 which was dated between AD 26-37. And this is the correct time frame for the events described in the Gospels. But this is not evidence for Jesus but for Pontius Pilate.

The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:

To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum...Pontius Pilate...prefect of Judea...has dedicated [this]...


Confirming this biblical figure's existence was crucial insofar that he played an important role in the execution of Jesus. This makes me think it's more plausible now that Pontius Pilate probably knew of a man named Jesus at the time and maybe even had a man named Jesus executed. But this is me just imagining such a scenario now. I can't ask Pilate what really happened then because he's been dead for about 2,000 years.

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

The Bible itself is evidence, but probably not the way Christians say it is.

There are problematic aspects to the Gospels that, IMO, are explained best by the early Christians trying to make sense of the life of a real person, since they wouldn't have been problems at all if the Jesus myth had been a whole-cloth fabrication.

The stuff about the census is one aspect of that: the way the author of Matthew has to jump through hoops to make Jesus from both Bethlehem and Nazareth suggests to me that they had to deal with incomplete or contradictory information that had been handed down in an oral record about a real person.

And there's the Gospel of Mark - the oldest Gospel. In it, the author is constantly making excuses for why Jesus's miracles wouldn't have been generally noticed. This suggests to me that the author was concerned with an audience who would have been familiar with Jesus who would have called out things that didn't match their recollection. It isn't until all of Jesus's contemporaries would have been dead that we get the stories of grandiose public miracles witnessed by crowds of people, such as the ones in the Gospel of John.

This sort of weirdness in the Gospels suggests that there were real historical events that the authors had to wrestle with.

Also, there's the mention in Flavius Josephus. Not the forged "Testimonium Flavianum," but the other, less impressive mention where Josephus writes about the trial of "James, brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ."

None of this is exactly a smoking gun, but I think it's more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus who the myths were glommed onto.

 

[Spice]

It's interesting. To think that Adam and others lived for hundreds of years is reasonable in comparison with at least one Sumerian king I read about who is said to have ruled for 42,000 years. En-men-lu-ana - Wikipedia.

And these "men," Adam included, probably encompass dynasties, or similar multiples, known by a single name.

 

[YoursTrue]

And these "men," Adam included, probably encompass dynasties, or similar multiples, known by a single name.

I don't think so. But -- since the Bible says Adam was the first man to live and he lived 930 years it makes sense.

 

[Spice]

I don't think so. But -- since the Bible says Adam was the first man to live and he lived 930 years it makes sense.

I'll give you a little experiment I did about a decade ago.

Go through Gensis and note Adam and all his descendants with the number of years recorded that they lived. Add 3 zeros to each age to hypothesize a year BCE. Setting Abraham to the far right with the year 3600 BCE, "graph" the others in a timeline to the left, listing each name, Noah back to Adam. (I can't remember how Noah's descendants worked in this.)

Now, check the paleontologist estimations on the earliest humanoids, and their time-periods and estimated length of existence. Compare it to your graph.

No, not perfect. But very interesting, especially when you see the over-laps. And it was fun to do. I really need to dig out my old laptop and see if I can find my graph. LOL