Did Jesus exist?

[jamesmorrow]

not to burst anyone's bubble but tacitus and josephus were born well after the supposed death of jesus. and the quran was written long after even their deaths.... so there is no proof of the historical jesus. all that exists is hearsay, that was written on paper. which is meaningless as a historical proof for the existence of someone who lived and died long before these stories were recorded.

 

[fallingblood]

I agree that the other passage outside of the Testimonium Flavium; the "Jesus the brother of James" does not appear to be a forgery, however the line tagged onto the end of it "Who was the christ," almost certainly was. A reference to Jesus the brother of James, or a John the brother of Tom, in no way proves the historical Jesus of the Gospels, let alone that he was the son of God. In the words of biblical Archaeologist Eric Cline:

"Archaeology has not yet been able to shed any direct light on the birth, life, or death of Jesus. That is to say, there is not yet any archaeological evidence for the historical Jesus—or any of the apostles for that matter….However, the failure of biblical archaeologists and pseudo-archaeologists to provide confirmatory evidence of the life of Jesus and the apostles has not been for lack of trying"

Further, there are no records of Jesus the son of Mary and Joseph outside of the religious scriptures, which are not very reliable as they are tainted by the motivation to persuade and convince people to beleive in and convert to, their religion, one religion out of thousands, a thousand to one shot of being true, if you like!

It all comes down to belief and faith and these two things are not proof of anything, but the existence of belief and faith alone!

It actually doesn't say that Jesus is Christ, but that he is called Christ. Which can actually be seen as denying that Jesus is Christ, but at the same time, recognizing that Christ is a way to distinguish this particular Jesus.

Also, I never said anything about the son of God, nor that the Gospels portray Jesus completely accurately.

Finally, the Gospels are just fine to use. The only reason people reject them is because they have religious overtones in them. But so did many historical works from that time. It just means one has to examine the Gospels as they would with other historical records. Not to mention that there is also Paul. So no, it doesn't come down to faith. It comes down to proper historical research (which is why atheists and agnostics can also accept that Jesus existed).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Point taken. And very informative article. I've read a little about Josephus, and always thought his Essene experience was a little weird.

I don't use Josephus very often, but I would look for scholarly articles on the debates related to the issue - if I said that he was a Pharisee (or whatever else).

I'm just thinking of all those translations I did during coursework. I know Josephus as a great thinker who was a talented apologist for his Judaism. His method was a bit like Paul, who transformed his Judaism into a Christianity that Gentiles could accept.

But I'm not convinced that Josephus knew Greek.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

not to burst anyone's bubble but tacitus and josephus were born well after the supposed death of jesus. and the quran was written long after even their deaths.... so there is no proof of the historical jesus. all that exists is hearsay, that was written on paper. which is meaningless as a historical proof for the existence of someone who lived and died long before these stories were recorded.

When do you think that Jesus supposedly died? And when did Tacitus and Josephus live?

(wiki can take you a long way on this)

 

[Quagmire]

not to burst anyone's bubble but tacitus and josephus were born well after the supposed death of jesus. and the quran was written long after even their deaths....

I can pretty much guarantee you that almost everyone in this thread already knew that. Just as most know that this...

tacitus and josephus were born well after the supposed death of jesus. and the quran was written long after even their deaths....

doesn't equal this....

...so there is no proof of the historical jesus.

all that exists is hearsay, that was written on paper.

Just like every other historical account.

which is meaningless as a historical proof

"historical proof". What, in your opinion, would qualify as "historical proof" in this case, or in any case?

 

[jamesmorrow]

When do you think that Jesus supposedly died? And when did Tacitus and Josephus live?

(wiki can take you a long way on this)

you do the math. i have done it long ago. there is at least several years between the supposed death of jesus and the birth of nearest non believing historian. the gap increases for every historian thereafter

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I can pretty much guarantee you that almost everyone in this thread already knew that. Just as most know that this..

haha

Jesus - supposedly died in 33CE

Josephus - 37-100CE

Tacitus - 56-117CE

OK, so Josephus was born FOUR YEARS after Jesus supposedly died.

Tacitus was born 23 years after Jesus supposedly died.

Considering every other notable person and event since Jesus lived, there's no way to fumble over 33 years, much less four - no person with any reasonable level of intellect can say that Josephus and Tacitus lived "well after" Jesus "supposedly died."

I suppose that on strength of that heroic recklessness we can conclude that Jesus never existed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

you do the math. i have done it long ago. there is at least several years between the supposed death of jesus and the birth of nearest non believing historian. the gap increases for every historian thereafter

hahaha

Well you can't add. haha

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My god this is hilarious.

 

[Quagmire]

haha

Jesus - supposedly died in 33CE

IMO, if we decide to accept the Gospel account that Jesus' ministry took place in between the death of John the Baptist and the end of Pilates office in Judea, a date of 36-37 CE seems more reasonable based on Josephus.

 

[fallingblood]

you do the math. i have done it long ago. there is at least several years between the supposed death of jesus and the birth of nearest non believing historian. the gap increases for every historian thereafter

Josephus was born in 37 C.E. He wrote about in 94 C.E. Really not that long after the fact. Especially when one considers that he lived during a time in which many of the apostles, and family of Jesus still were living. When many people who had seen Jesus were still alive. He lived in a pretty good time period.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

you do the math.

Ok. Hold on a minute. We'll go with a bayesian analysis given the a posteriori nature of historical evidence. But given the sources and evidence a filtering mechanism is appropriate. In fact, let's train an ANN to recognize patterns in ancient historical texts historians all agree are historical, then those which most, and using our bayesian based ANN we'll determine the probability.
Hold on.
Still computing.
Ok done. You're wrong. Math over.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Josephus was born in 37 C.E. He wrote about in 94 C.E. Really not that long after the fact. Especially when one considers that he lived during a time in which many of the apostles, and family of Jesus still were living. When many people who had seen Jesus were still alive. He lived in a pretty good time period.

It was, however, well after the invention of the wheel.

 

[Quagmire]

the gap increases for every historian thereafter

Why yes: as time goes on, the gap between the event in question and later events tends to widen. :yes:

 

[jamesmorrow]

I can pretty much guarantee you that almost everyone in this thread already knew that. Just as most know that this...



doesn't equal this....






Just like every other historical account.



"historical proof". What, in your opinion, would qualify as "historical proof" in this case, or in any case?

eyewitness accounts and proper documentation.......... i know, i know. next you will argue that by my criteria there is no historiacl proof for pretty much anything before the 18th century or so..... and you would be correct. there is no HARD proof that anything happened the way people say it did. the only difference is that historical figures, such as, say pontius pilate or cesar, never claimed any supernatural powers. and therefore even if there is no hard evidence of their specific actions, or even their very existence. i have no trouble believing that yes, they probably did exist, and yes, they probably acted in such and such manner as described by historians.

now, beowulf, the dragon, santaclaus, rudolph the red nosed buffalo, and simba the purple dotted lion on the other hand, even if some historians recorded their existence i will not believe. same applies to supernatural jesus who walked on water and raised the dead....... if jesus was just a regular carpenter however without any supernatural powers, then yes, i woud have no trouble believing josephus and tacitus, although i wouldnt care either way, and neither would you... its the supernatural element that is at the heart of this discussion.

 

[jamesmorrow]

hahaha

Well you can't add. haha

apparently it is you who can not add. unless you believe jesus lived a long happy life and died of old age.

 

[jamesmorrow]

haha

Jesus - supposedly died in 33CE

Josephus - 37-100CE

Tacitus - 56-117CE

OK, so Josephus was born FOUR YEARS after Jesus supposedly died.

Tacitus was born 23 years after Jesus supposedly died.

Considering every other notable person and event since Jesus lived, there's no way to fumble over 33 years, much less four - no person with any reasonable level of intellect can say that Josephus and Tacitus lived "well after" Jesus "supposedly died."

I suppose that on strength of that heroic recklessness we can conclude that Jesus never existed.

4 years or 40 years does not make the slightest difference. jesus died well before the historian was born......... then you have to count the years it took for that historian to reach adulthood and actually become a historian.... it is not even close to an eyewitness account. recorded hearsay at best.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

its the supernatural element that is at the heart of this discussion.

Perhaps reading what "history" is would help. You've got it precisely backwards.

The other writings that you mentioned have some (however small) historical value because they betray the culture and language of a certain time. There is historical content in poetry, art, and etc.

But history can't inquire supernatural elements, so they are dismissed because an historical event must have an historical cause - that is, the natural. There is no supernatural subject.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

4 years or 40 years does not make the slightest difference. jesus died well before the historian was born......... then you have to count the years it took for that historian to reach adulthood and actually become a historian.... it is not even close to an eyewitness account. recorded hearsay at best.

My god you are entertaining. :biglaugh:

 

[outhouse]

. same applies to supernatural jesus who walked on water and raised the dead.......

You need to learn the difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus. they are not the two same people

....... if jesus was just a regular carpenter

he wasnt a carpenter

he was probably a hand worker doing odd jobs if not helping build Sepphoris, and or working in a field. his status was that a little below a peasant

, then yes, i woud have no trouble believing josephus and tacitus

well there it is. You believe in historical jesus, not biblical jesus.

its the supernatural element that is at the heart of this discussion.

I dont know to many credible people that do follow this.