How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to---Bunyip you wrote this
My position is that nothing in history is certain, and that the historicity of Jesus has not been adequately established. There is yet to be any evidence to connect the stories with a specific time, place and person.
=============
what is meaning --
please

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Christians in Europe
In the reign of Nero
And history says that Nero burned Rome
To get rid of the followers of Jesus
And in the stadiums of Rome was criticizing Christians
Is this also a legend
My information is that of historical novel
Name kovadis
A great novel

 

[Bunyip]

to---Bunyip you wrote this
My position is that nothing in history is certain, and that the historicity of Jesus has not been adequately established. There is yet to be any evidence to connect the stories with a specific time, place and person.
=============
what is meaning --
please

It means what it says my friend.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For some time I have been wanting to,challenge what I see to be a grossly overstated claim:

That the historicity of Jesus has been established. And that only denialists doubt the historicity of Jesus. It is often claimed that the historicity of Jesus is better evidenced than is the historicity of Julius Caeser and it it these over stated claims that I would like to challenge.

My position is that nothing in history is certain, and that the historicity of Jesus has not been adequately established. There is yet to be any evidence to connect the stories with a specific time, place and person.

I would love to discuss/debate this with any other members, but seem to get responses only from those who tend to stick to ad hominem attaks and false accusations. I can guarantee to be polite, accountable and honest, I can and will follow the argument and try to have a fun exchange if you will do the same.

All I ask is an honest discussion without the endless accusations, insults, deceptions and so on.

That someone existed that sparked those myths? Yes. A person who actually existed as the bible proclaimed....no.

 

[Bunyip]

That someone existed that sparked those myths? Yes. A person who actually existed as the bible proclaimed....no.

Yes, I agree.

On the other threads about the historicity of Jesus it seems that this view (myth and truth based on a real person) was seen by the most ardent supporters of the historicity of Jesus as preposterous.

For some reason that I was never able to make sense of one must either embrace historicity (that Jesus was real) OR 'mythicism' (that he was mythological) - and the most logical position (that he is likely a little of both) is continually dismissed as being ridiculous.

I imagine it is just an apologetic device.

 

[Whiterain]

Going with your conscience isn't really reasonable, no matter how religiously/ spiritually oppressed you are.

As far as the evidence and facts, maybe the Church has some tangible proof that would move people.
The crusades seem to start on no more proof than the following, ideologies have changed slightly since then.

I believe in Christ but what people need more than anything is evidence the put their minds at rest.
Maybe there's proof in the bowels of the Vatican museum, I doubt it.

Catholocism/Christiantiy is 2000 years strong and still going strong but questioning the divinity
of Christ as well as his prolonged absence will become more reasonable as the days go on.

It's slightly absurd and embarrassing and I even believe in Christ.

I don't think he is coming back, not in a sense of a magical flying chariot or carpet or anything that theatrical.

 

[Bunyip]

Going with your conscience isn't really reasonable, no matter how religiously/ spiritually oppressed you are.

As far as the evidence and facts, maybe the Church has some tangible proof that would move people.
The crusades seem to start on no more proof than the following, ideologies have changed slightly since then.

I believe in Christ but what people need more than anything is evidence the put their minds at rest.
Maybe there's proof in the bowels of the Vatican museum, I doubt it.

Catholocism/Christiantiy is 2000 years strong and still going strong but questioning the divinity
of Christ as well as his prolonged absence will become more reasonable as the days go on.

It's slightly absurd and embarrassing and I even believe in Christ.

I don't think he is coming back, not in a sense of a magical flying chariot or carpet or anything that theatrical.

Thanks for contributing. Cheers

 

[roger1440]

I've had this discussion with my friend Jeff a few times. If after a few beers i weaken and admit Jesus might have existed as in scripture , his next step is to question my atheism and turn a good buzz into "if he exsisted why not this," or "why not that.".

I steer clear.

You are probably not drinking enough beer.

 

[Desert Snake]

Going with your conscience isn't really reasonable, no matter how religiously/ spiritually oppressed you are.

As far as the evidence and facts, maybe the Church has some tangible proof that would move people.
The crusades seem to start on no more proof than the following, ideologies have changed slightly since then.

I believe in Christ but what people need more than anything is evidence the put their minds at rest.
Maybe there's proof in the bowels of the Vatican museum, I doubt it.

Catholocism/Christiantiy is 2000 years strong and still going strong but questioning the divinity
of Christ as well as his prolonged absence will become more reasonable as the days go on.

It's slightly absurd and embarrassing and I even believe in Christ.

I don't think he is coming back, not in a sense of a magical flying chariot or carpet or anything that theatrical.

I wonder how much the 'witnesses' to Jesus could really explain what they were witnessing. We have to remember that at the time, society wasn't advanced, no technology to speak of, they had to explain things in their own way. I get the feeling from reading Scripture that if we are actually to believe the narrative, in any way, we are dealing with someone very extraordinary, not an 'average preacher' that people wouldn't follow if enough Roman guvment heat was put on them. These people believed....Romans were converting....Rome itself eventually adopted the new religion.
If someone says that early Xianity was just a random Jewish cult, it really doesn't make sense.

 

[Bunyip]

I wonder how much the 'witnesses' to Jesus could really explain what they were witnessing. We have to remember that at the time, society wasn't advanced, no technology to speak of, they had to explain things in their own way. I get the feeling from reading Scripture that if we are actually to believe the narrative, in any way, we are dealing with someone very extraordinary, not an 'average preacher' that people wouldn't follow if enough Roman guvment heat was put on them. These people believed....Romans were converting....Rome itself eventually adopted the new religion.
If someone says that early Xianity was just a random Jewish cult, it really doesn't make sense.

What do you mean by a 'random Jewish cult'? How can a cult be random?

 

[Desert Snake]

What do you mean by a 'random Jewish cult'? How can a cult be random?

If we put it in the usual critique of an heretical group dwelling within the confines of Judaism, that's pretty random, especially if there is/was no validity to the powers of Jesus.

I personally don't view the situation in that manner, but many seem to.

 

[Bunyip]

If we put it in the usual critique of an heretical group dwelling within the confines of Judaism, that's pretty random, especially if there is/was no validity to the powers of Jesus.

I personally don't view the situation in that manner, but many seem to.

Thanks for the response, I'm afraid I don't see what you mean.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks for the response, I'm afraid I don't see what you mean.

Hmm o.k.

I think if one looks at Xianity in a 'later; timeline of adherence, this may not make much sense, but the argument is used nonetheless. (As to how Xianity began).

I don't believe the 'later' Xianity theory, Paul wrote his own take on Xianity, people were already established in their beliefs, if they were Xians, Paul 'added' to Christian doctrine, he didn't invent it.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

There is confusion between personal Jesus and the deity of Christ
Personal Jesus is it was already past time mogodl
This speech is the subject
Yes Jesus was a human
In Jerusalem
And he swept in Judaea, and in Samaria and Galilee
And was proclaimed the Kingdom of God and guide the message of salvation
Raised a sword
This information we knew from books transferred to us
The books written after the resurrection of Christ
Therefore Christ real personality

 

[Buttercup]

Six pages in and I'm still waiting for some Christian types to swoop in and post some links to evidence for Jesus. Josephus Flavius, at least?

 

[Bunyip]

Six pages in and I'm still waiting for some Christian types to swoop in and post some links to evidence for Jesus. Josephus Flavius, at least?

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

 

[oldbadger]

No one was hassled by the Roman government simply because of their religion. Pre-Christian Rome was very tolerant of religion.

I'm not sure that Romans were religion-tolerant of all.....
You mention 'Pre-Christian Romans....' which could win your point. But Romans didn't half show aggression to the Druids..... possibly later..... but.... ?

 

[oldbadger]

I think that there were parallel 'groups' in the region, with varying traditions and beliefs. I don't think your statement would even apply to the, for instance, non-Jewish converts/followers of Yeshu, this is NOTABLE because remember, Jesus is often referred to as the "Jewish Messiah", yet having gentile followers indicates He was 'more' than that.


Not sure if that answers your question.

Jesus, or Yeshua.... I don't think that he did have any Gentile followers during his life...... ? As far as we know his disciples and the majority of his followers were Galileans........ and I suspect that Galileans were very superstitious, and if they were more affected by hysteria (like some other Mediterranean peoples?) then they would have been more open to auto-suggestion. If I'm right then some of Yeshua's healings could have been effected by charismatic-stun.

 

[oldbadger]

All this time, I thought you were talking about some ancient manuscript!

..... sorry... :sad:

Mark has Jesus walking on water and calming a storm. No, I don't think that happened. Lol.

Yeah...... no probs...... I like both of them for real events that got enlarged. Which storm did you have in mind, the so-called storm when he walked on water or one of the others?

And he didn't 'walk on water'...... they probably said the he 'flew' across it......:yes:.... and no.... I'm not going to the funny farm.... well, not yet, anyways.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus, or Yeshua.... I don't think that he did have any Gentile followers during his life...... ? As far as we know his disciples and the majority of his followers were Galileans........ and I suspect that Galileans were very superstitious, and if they were more affected by hysteria (like some other Mediterranean peoples?) then they would have been more open to auto-suggestion. If I'm right then some of Yeshua's healings could have been effected by charismatic-stun.

Idk, this seems in the speculation department. It seems to me that if we actually read the narrative, the non-Christians (or Jesus followers), seem a tad hysterical to me, Jesus seems quite rational, I guess it's just ones viewpoint.

However, it is Josephus who said that Jesus had gathered gentile followers, that's my reference there.
p.s. Yes I know, some think Josephus is full of interpolations. That being said, even the earliest descriptions have Gentile converts, I don't think it makes that much of a difference whether they were the ones being healed or just Christ followers in general.