How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[oldbadger]

Paul had a good steady job as a bounty hunter on the payroll of the snooty priests, rounding up Christians for trial and punishment,

..... OK.

so NO WAY HOZAY would he resign to become an unpaid Christian unless something dramatic happened like getting blasted off his feet by Jesus like he was..

...... he might have received new instructions from his clients.
...... somebody might have figured out a new policy-change.
...... or maybe you're right, and Saul was just a contract-buster.

 

[Bunyip]

In comparihg the case for Augustus against that for Jesus we are comparing Paul's account of the risen Jesus with letters by Augustine himself for example.

Paul is a contestable secondary source, Augustus's letters are primary sources. We also have biographies from his time, names, dates and countless corroborating sources. We have none of that for Jesus.

The simple fact is that the case for the historicity of Augustus is superior - and yes I will happily argue for it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Paul is a contestable secondary source, Augustus's letters are primary sources. We also have biographies from his time, names, dates and countless corroborating sources. We have none of that for Jesus.

i'm not big on the 'added' epistles, however with Paul, it could be inferred that what he was 'noting', i.e. already held doctrine of a real Jesus, is evidence to the existence of Jesus, that's how I see it. That is what makes it plausible to me, not Pauls firsthand accounts of anything necessarily. Then again, I'm coming from the background of belief that Paul was translating earlier texts written in Aramaic, anyway, so I don't hold the notion that Paul was the first to be writing this religious Scripture.

 

[Bunyip]

i'm not big on the 'added' epistles, however with Paul, it could be inferred that what he was 'noting', i.e. already held doctrine of a real Jesus, is evidence to the existence of Jesus, that's how I see it. That is what makes it plausible to me, not Pauls firsthand accounts of anything necessarily. Then again, I'm coming from the background of belief that Paul was translating earlier texts written in Aramaic, anyway, so I don't hold the notion that Paul was the first to be writing this religious Scripture.

Sure, that is a reasonable position. My point is that for Augustus and many others we more direct ajd primary evidence.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sure, that is a reasonable position. My point is that for Augustus and many others we more direct ajd primary evidence.

Could be. I'm not surprised by this, though. If Jesus was real, the way I read the historical context, is that the Authorities of the time would be doing everything to lessen the power and influence of the Christians, there may even have been pressure on the Epistle writers to 'tone it down' regarding adherence to Xian doctrine, so because of this, we have less than 'normal' evidence for Jesus existence. I think it's very plausible that Xianity was a much larger event in it's early conception, and we have the 'revised' version (historically speaking) to an extent. People don't like to admit that a wayward group outside of their power elite changed the status quo to a large extent, hence also explaining the 'addition' to Xian Doctrine whenever possible by the people caught up in the reality of the situation, i.e. Xianity taking over, basically.

 

[Bunyip]

Could be. I'm not surprised by this, though. If Jesus was real, the way I read the historical context, is that the Authorities of the time would be doing everything to lessen the power and influence of the Christians, there may even have been pressure on the Epistle writers to 'tone it down' regarding adherence to Xian doctrine, so because of this, we have less than 'normal' evidence for Jesus existence.

Well it is certainly fascinating to speculate why there is 'less than normal evidence for Jesus existence' - and your explanation may be correct. The fact remains though that there is a much less reliable case for historicity than we have for many other figures.

. I think it's very plausible that Xianity was a much larger event in it's early conception, and we have the 'revised' version (historically speaking) to an extent. People don't like to admit that a wayward group outside of their power elite changed the status quo to a large extent, hence also explaining the 'addition' to Xian Doctrine whenever possible by the people caught up in the reality of the situation, i.e. Xianity taking over, basically.

That would be an interesting idea for you to explore. Evidence of a broader popularity for early Christianity than we know of now would be a very important discovery.
Cheers.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Paul never met the historical Jesus - only the resurrected Jesus.

Same thing.

 

[Bunyip]

Same thing.

For the faithful perhaps. For the purposes of establishing historicity it is very different.

 

[Apple Sugar]

A grossly overstated claim?

I think you have to remember that the Romans invaded Jerusalem in 70A.D. They burned cities to the ground. That would include having destroyed any written accounts of a trial of Yeshua by the Sanhedrin, any accounts of his works.
This doesn't mean nothing exists pertaining to Yeshua however.

Chrestus or Christus, the Latin word for Christ was given reference by Tacitus. A credible historian of the time when he accounted of his trial during the reign of Tiberius. He also wrote of the "superstitious" Christians, derived from the Chrestus/Christus, as they were followers of the man called Chrestus.

Flavius Josephus is often cited as a credible Jewish historian that accounted of Yeshua. However, most Biblical scholars discount the record of Christ in his writings as interpolations. Installed in the manuscripts of Josephus after his passing so as to give credence to the faith using his reputation as a vehicle.

Thallus recorded the darkness that descended after the crucifixion of Yeshua.

I found this since you asked the question. It's rather fitting given the title: "Got Questions"
Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"


THE OLDEST SECULAR ACCOUNTS & HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON THE EXISTANCE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH

Set the atheist critics aside and consider what scoffers are proposing when they argue it is impossible for Jesus to have existed.

They're proposing that people conspired together and invented him. Then other people followed the fictitious writings pertaining to what the fictional character "said". After countless others had followed the fictional verbal teachings, being Christianity started as an oral tradition and then evolved into written form, which is why early Christians were called, "The People of the Book".

During this time apostles who were the primary messengers of this fabrication were tortured and executed. Every single one. While the letters of the Apostle Paul still exist and account of the journey and the teachings of Christ in his own words.
But he lied. Because what he was really doing, and gave his life to complete, was spreading a lie, a manufactured fable worthy dying for.

Meanwhile, countless people died martyrs deaths because they thought this life was worth no less than being tortured to death due to the self delusion they held in something no more real than Mickey Mouse.

In scripture there are writings that say, no one comes to God unless he calls them. That those meant to know the truth of Christ connect with the resonance of his truth, his "voice" when they hear it speak to them.These are those also known as the Elect.

Perhaps one might consider the scoffers, the nay sayers, those who think the Bible can't be considered a valid historical record of Christ, are those for whom the resonance, the "voice" of God, is mute. And given that they think since they can't hear a voice of God it must not speak at all to anyone else.

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.

 

[Bunyip]

A grossly overstated claim?

I think you have to remember that the Romans invaded Jerusalem in 70A.D. They burned cities to the ground. That would include having destroyed any written accounts of a trial of Yeshua by the Sanhedrin, any accounts of his works.
This doesn't mean nothing exists pertaining to Yeshua however.

Nobody was arguing that there was no evidence for Jesus - the question here is about degrees of certainty.

Chrestus or Christus, the Latin word for Christ was given reference by Tacitus. A credible historian of the time when he accounted of his trial during the reign of Tiberius. He also wrote of the "superstitious" Christians, derived from the Chrestus/Christus, as they were followers of the man called Chrestus.

Flavius Josephus is often cited as a credible Jewish historian that accounted of Yeshua. However, most Biblical scholars discount the record of Christ in his writings as interpolations. Installed in the manuscripts of Josephus after his passing so as to give credence to the faith using his reputation as a vehicle.

Thallus recorded the darkness that descended after the crucifixion of Yeshua.

I found this since you asked the question. It's rather fitting given the title: "Got Questions"
Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"


THE OLDEST SECULAR ACCOUNTS & HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON THE EXISTANCE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH

Set the atheist critics aside and consider what scoffers are proposing when they argue it is impossible for Jesus to have existed.

They're proposing that people conspired together and invented him. Then other people followed the fictitious writings pertaining to what the fictional character "said". After countless others had followed the fictional verbal teachings, being Christianity started as an oral tradition and then evolved into written form, which is why early Christians were called, "The People of the Book".

During this time apostles who were the primary messengers of this fabrication were tortured and executed. Every single one. While the letters of the Apostle Paul still exist and account of the journey and the teachings of Christ in his own words.
But he lied. Because what he was really doing, and gave his life to complete, was spreading a lie, a manufactured fable worthy dying for.

Meanwhile, countless people died martyrs deaths because they thought this life was worth no less than being tortured to death due to the self delusion they held in something no more real than Mickey Mouse.

In scripture there are writings that say, no one comes to God unless he calls them. That those meant to know the truth of Christ connect with the resonance of his truth, his "voice" when they hear it speak to them.These are those also known as the Elect.

Perhaps one might consider the scoffers, the nay sayers, those who think the Bible can't be considered a valid historical record of Christ, are those for whom the resonance, the "voice" of God, is mute. And given that they think since they can't hear a voice of God it must not speak at all to anyone else.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Nobody was arguing that there was no evidence for Jesus - the question here is about degrees of certainty.

They're interrelated. If there is no question as to Jesus' existence then how can there be a variant on the degrees of certainty as relates to the evidence?

 

[Bunyip]

They're interrelated. If there is no question as to Jesus' existence then how can there be a variant on the degrees of certainty as relates to the evidence?

Jesus historicity is not something that has been firmly established. There is still so much that we do not know, like when he was born and where. We also know nothing of his life between infancy and his final mission - nor do any accounts from witnesses remain.

Whilst for a figure like that of Augustus Ceaser for example we have biographies, letters and a wealth corroborating sources that describe his life ajd times in great detail.

To imagine that the case for a historical Jesus has been closed, is to stop looking before we have got to the man himself. That there is evidence for a historical Jesus does not mean that the case for a historical Jesus has been made.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Jesus historicity is not something that has been firmly established. There is still so much that we do not know, like when he was born and where. We also know nothing of his life between infancy and his final mission - nor do any accounts from witnesses remain.

True. That's the problem with councils deciding what qualified to comprise the closed canon. And subsequently insured all other writings would fall under the dismissive category of apocrypha. The writings of the Essenes, the Gnostics, included.

The materials used to record any such accounts stand to have been compromised by time and the elements as well. The Dead Sea scrolls are testament to what can occur to erode the documents of a history.
And of course the torching of the Alexandrian library insured a loss of incalculable proportions in matters of historic documents.

Whilst for a figure like that of Augustus Ceaser for example we have biographies, letters and a wealth corroborating sources that describe his life ajd times in great detail.

And yet it was the Romans who burned Jerusalem and insured the history of their conquered people would not survive. While their own suffered no such fate.

To imagine that the case for a historical Jesus has been closed, is to stop looking before we have got to the man himself. That there is evidence for a historical Jesus does not mean that the case for a historical Jesus has been made.

I don't think anyone here has made the claim that the case is closed as to the evidence that supports the existence of a historical Jesus.
But to argue one seeks evidence for a historical Jesus, while refuting the credibility or validity of that which does exist, is not evidence itself of a sincere respect for Jesus and that what does exist to show he did too.

 

[Bunyip]

True. That's the problem with councils deciding what qualified to comprise the closed canon. And subsequently insured all other writings would fall under the dismissive category of apocrypha. The writings of the Essenes, the Gnostics, included.

The materials used to record any such accounts stand to have been compromised by time and the elements as well. The Dead Sea scrolls are testament to what can occur to erode the documents of a history.
And of course the torching of the Alexandrian library insured a loss of incalculable proportions in matters of historic documents.


And yet it was the Romans who burned Jerusalem and insured the history of their conquered people would not survive. While their own suffered no such fate.


I don't think anyone here has made the claim that the case is closed as to the evidence that supports the existence of a historical Jesus.

Several people had been claiming it to be a historical fact, others that it was better established that that for any other person in the ancient world, others claiming that to suggest Jesus was not historical was absurd. Those were the grossly overstated claims I was referring to in the op.

But to argue one seeks evidence for a historical Jesus, while refuting the credibility or validity of that which does exist, is not evidence itself of a sincere respect for Jesus and that what does exist to show he did too.

I'm very sorry, that last part I could not make sense of.

 

[Apple Sugar]

I'm very sorry, that last part I could not make sense of.

Sure.
I'll rephrase. Seeking evidence for a historic Christ while discounting the credibility of the evidence that already exists doesn't demonstrate a genuine interest in the fact of Christ.

Does that clear up your confusion regarding the prior statement that said the same thing in a different way? I hope so. If not please let me know.

 

[Bunyip]

Sure.
I'll rephrase. Seeking evidence for a historic Christ while discounting the credibility of the evidence that already exists doesn't demonstrate a genuine interest in the fact of Christ.

Does that clear up your confusion regarding the prior statement that said the same thing in a different way? I hope so. If not please let me know.

I don't believe that any of the evidence is being discounted, what are you referring to? If you mean that it is a fact ('the fact of Christ'), then yes - I discount that as a fact. It is not a fact, it is an inference.
The point is that the sum total of that evidence leaves so much unknown.

 

[steeltoes]

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.

Can we rule out a mythical Christ with any certainty?

 

[Apple Sugar]

I don't believe that any of the evidence is being discounted, what are you referring to? If you mean that it is a fact ('the fact of Christ'), then yes - I discount that as a fact. It is not a fact, it is an inference.
The point is that the sum total of that evidence leaves so much unknown.

I don't believe you realize what you've just said and that it makes no sense at all. I now understand why you couldn't understand what I'd said previously.
Let's just stop here shall we? Thanks. Be well.

 

[Bunyip]

Can we rule out a mythical Christ with any certainty?

The Jesus story as we know it is likely to contain a proportion of myth.

 

[oldbadger]

Can we rule out a mythical Christ with any certainty?

Hi.....

No...... of course we cannot rule out a Mythical Christ.
Indeed, many folks would argue that Christ is mythical.

But Historical Jesus, the Galilean Healer who joined in a mission, got baptised, held a demo in the Temple and got executed might be able to present indirect and secondary evidence as to his existence. Not certain, but plausible.

You would 'go' for plausible, wouldn't you? Go on! Dive in!