Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus

[amorphous_constellation]

Take Paul, he was hated and loved. We have all kinds of traditions showing a wide range of belief for him and his words and actions. And he was a very important figure in the NT.

Actually Paul probably met more people than Jesus. Do any historians attest to his existence?

Anyway, imagine for a second that I was a writer living in the 1st century. Say I wanted to write some history, so in part I wrote about the religions and philosophies around me at the time. Upon encountering some Christians, I asked who was their main figure and when did he live. Well they'd say he died this many years ago, they'd tell me a little bit about what his views are and throw in some of the miraculous claims. I'd have no reason not to recognize them as having had a leader, no reason to doubt there may have been someone who had all these views they were telling me someone had.

 

[outhouse]

Actually Paul probably met more people than Jesus. Do any historians attest to his existence?

Im going to agree here. Jesus was a backwoods bumpkin compared to Paul.


And yes some conspiracy nutters actually do question his existence as well. They have zero credibility.

One mistake most people make about Paul, is they do not realize his epistles were for the most party co authored within a community. This was not a single person writing letters.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

One mistake most people make about Paul, is they do not realize his epistles were for the most party co authored within a community. This was not a single person writing letters.

Then they'd also not be a single person doing all the traveling.

 

[outhouse]

Then they'd also not be a single person doing all the traveling.

When you read each epistle header of his 7 attributed ones, you see who is involved.

Doesn't mean we even know who or where he traveled, Paul and others wrote rhetorically it was the prose they were trained in. It gave all of them artistic freedom to build authority.


Their goal was to persuade those who read these letters that their version was the correct one.

 

[outhouse]

Anyway, imagine for a second that I was a writer living in the 1st century. Say I wanted to write some history, so in part I wrote about the religions and philosophies around me at the time. Upon encountering some Christians, I asked who was their main figure and when did he live. Well they'd say he died this many years ago, they'd tell me a little bit about what his views are and throw in some of the miraculous claims. I'd have no reason not to recognize them as having had a leader, no reason to doubt there may have been someone who had all these views they were telling me someone had.

Writing was a luxury for the rich. It wasn't done willy nilly so to speak.


In jesus case we have multiple people all writing at the same time close to lifetime of the events as far as the gospels do.

Paul and his people were writing about this guy 15 years after his death. This makes Pauls writings very valuable for Jesus Historicity. He was living when Jesus did.

No one can explain why Paul wrote what eh did and why without a historical man behind the crucifixion.


A few have tried but their guesses are all laughable, and driven by atheist bias. Not one is recognized by credible scholars as correct.

 

[Bunyip]

Unlike the ignored member above, who has been placed there for refusal to address any topic in academia.

I have sources, many mythicist refuse all education and wish to remain uneducated but still wish to fight tooth and nail against what is not even debated.

It is exactly like creationist fighting evolution.


Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed

LOL No, you put e on ignore because I exposed the utterly laughable idea you continuosly espouse that there should be ancient records of stuff that didn't happen. And that claiming that because you have no records of Jesus not existing, therefore he must have existed. A claim which cracks me up every time.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

No one can explain why Paul wrote what eh did and why without a historical man behind the crucifixion.

It says he had a 'vision' on the road to Damascus or whatever. In scientific terms, a hallucination involving supposed spiritual material that seemed to have caused his epiphany or conversion. So even if he was a real figure, he was someone who was initiated to preach by way of a vision, the nature of a vision being that no one else experiences it but the the receiver of it. And he would have others of course, the example of the animal picnic where was told he could eat anything he wanted for example. So this goes to show that this was a man experiencing phenomena that we would probably liken today to an affliction of abnormal neurological imbalances, looking back upon it as modern people, right?

 

[Bunyip]

A better example might be the phoenix. This mythological animal was mentioned by some ancient western historians I believe, and they would speak of its elusive nature casting doubt on whether or not it might just be fictional.

The point is simply that the reason nobody left a record claiming that Jesus did not exist is because people record things that did happen, nobody makes lists of stuff that didn't happen. Anyone who did not believe Jesus was real at the time, would be unlikely to make a note of it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The point is simply that the reason nobody left a record claiming that Jesus did not exist is because people record things that did happen, nobody makes lists of stuff that didn't happen. Anyone who did not believe Jesus was real at the time, would be unlikely to make a note of it.

There were some minor notes made of it though, but they seem to relegate and treat it for what it was at the time, just a minor sect or cult of something they didn't expect to take over the western world. Like for example, I read the complete works of Tacitus which amounts to thousands of pages and he only mentions the followers of Christus in one little paragraph. Clearly he saw it and thought it would be a passing fad.

 

[outhouse]

It says he had a 'vision' on the road to Damascus or whatever

Nope.

Acts written much later states that. Paul states the opposite. He states he had a feeling from within, and that is what changed his attitude

 

[outhouse]

Clearly he saw it and thought it would be a passing fad.

The movement was not that large or well known in Josephus and Tacitus time.

Remember Jesus and his Galilean movement were long dead when they wrote. They were describing their perspective on the movement they had heard about.

But it was more then a passing fad. Hellenist had been worshipping Judaism for hundreds of years prior. Jesus martyrdom started the divorce of Hellenistic Judaism from cultural Judaism.

 

[Bunyip]

There were some minor notes made of it though, but they seem to relegate and treat it for what it was at the time, just a minor sect or cult of something they didn't expect to take over the western world. Like for example, I read the complete works of Tacitus which amounts to thousands of pages and he only mentions the followers of Christus in one little paragraph. Clearly he saw it and thought it would be a passing fad.

Sure, but the point is that people rarely make records of stuff they don't think happened - and so trying to use that idea to claim Jesus must have existed is simply ludicrous.

 

[outhouse]

What really started it was that Judaism was taking off all over the Diaspora, but they didn't want to fully convert or cut their winky skin off.

Monotheism was becoming popular, and with jesus, one could worship a perceived selfless man who died for the good of the people, or a corrupt Emperor known as the "son of god" first

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Acts written much later states that. Paul states the opposite. He states he had a feeling from within, and that is what changed his attitude

Well, science has that covered too, under the heading of a kinesthetic perturbation. I would submit that a kinesthetic experience can also be hallucinatory.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Sure, but the point is that people rarely make records of stuff they don't think happened - and so trying to use that idea to claim Jesus must have existed is simply ludicrous.

A greater question might be how much can we trust all these ancient historians. Many of them may have been prone to exaggeration and a tendency to add luster to what might otherwise be a dull world. Who knows what they are omitting or who they had a bias toward. The magic for instance I read of in Bede's world is quite comparable to something out of Harry Potter.

 

[Bunyip]

A greater question might be how much can we trust all these ancient historians. Many of them may have been prone to exaggeration and a tendency to add luster to what might otherwise be a dull world. Who knows what they are omitting or who they had a bias toward. The magic for instance I read of in Bede's world is quite comparable to something out of Harry Potter.

Well sure, I agree completely. But again, I think you miss my point - arguing the lack of evidence reporting that Jesus did not exist as support for his historicity is just laughable.

 

[psychoslice]

I think one day soon we will all realize that Jesus was never on this earth, we will then start to think for ourselves, we will take our life into our own hands, we will be our own saviour, what a day that will be.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Well sure, I agree completely. But again, I think you miss my point - arguing the lack of evidence reporting that Jesus did not exist as support for his historicity is just laughable.

I think people didn't all agree on that, the primary language of the new testament being one framed by opposition.

 

[Bunyip]

I think people didn't all agree on that, the primary language of the new testament being one framed by opposition.

I'm sorry - could you clarify please? I don't get it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm sorry - could you clarify please? I don't get it.

What I meant was, there were plenty of people in the New Testament that seemed pretty hard won or conspicuously steadfast, the writing itself seems to indicate a resistance, in turn indicating simply that plenty of doubt existed. In a simulation of an actual Jesus in 1st century Palestine somehow I doubt it would have been as the gospels proclaim it, if someone actually came down here and performed magic tricks people would stop what they were doing, I think. Maybe that's something for a thread topic.