Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Comradio251]

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?

 

[Spice]

Perhaps the records of the Apostles -- not the biblical writings, but more to the works attributed to them and the stories of their lives and deaths. Historians believe Mark traveled to Alexandria, Egypt and Matthew to Ethiopia. This is a good place to start. If the Apostles footprints can be traced, then it substantiates the historical Jesus beyond the Joseph's reference.

 

[Comradio251]

Perhaps the records of the Apostles -- not the biblical writings, but more to the works attributed to them and the stories of their lives and deaths. Historians believe Mark traveled to Alexandria, Egypt and Matthew to Ethiopia. This is a good place to start. If the Apostles footprints can be traced, then it substantiates the historical Jesus beyond the Joseph's reference.

Yes, however, I heard some of the epistle letters were not credited to Paul. Lots are now being disputed like Titus, 1&2 Timothy etc. and so must have been written by somebody else. Some point to a period in the late 2nd century AD. Also, I thought these letters were still initially believed to have been written 20 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Paul never literally met him either as far as I remember.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

There is none but there is plenty of evidence on early Christians who followed a figure they had named Christ.

 

[Spice]

Yes, however, I heard some of the epistle letters were not credited to Paul. Lots are now being disputed like Titus, 1&2 Timothy etc. and so must have been written by somebody else. Some point to a period in the late 2nd century AD. Also, I thought these letters were still initially believed to have been written 20 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Paul never literally met him either as far as I remember.

No one is sure about who wrote what for the most part. It's generally considered that followers of the "named" are the authors. For example, the book of Mark were the teachings of Mark, but not necessarily by anyone who knew him directly. In fact, it is known the last of Mark was a later addition.

The epistles written to new, upstarting churches, are confidently given to Paul as he was an administrator of the developing churches, reaching out beyond where the Apostles of Christ. Some of his followers may have been from the 70 secondary disciples of Jesus, which could account for some of his teaching points. And you are correct -- Paul never met the man, Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lots are now being disputed like Titus, 1&2 Timothy etc. and so must have been written by somebody else.

You've just claimed: {A} is being disputed, therefore {A} is pseudepigraphic ...

Unless and until the disputants are determined to be correct, your claim is nonsense.

Confirming this biblical figure's existence was crucial insofar that he played an important role in the execution of Jesus.

Or there was, indeed, a Jesus, but he was executed by someone else, perhaps at some other time.
Or there was no Jesus, but Pilate was real and involved in executing others.
Or ...

Your claim that the stone constitutes "crucial evidence" of Jesus is baseless.

 

[soulsurvivor]

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?

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

 

[Heyo]

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

Which Jesus?

An itinerant preacher wandering the Levant in the early first century?
Not much evidence there, but then again, it's not an extraordinary claim, so could well be true.

A miracle working, dead raising, virgin born, one part of a triune godhead who got killed and resurrected?
Nope. No evidence sufficient for such extraordinary claims.

Claims need evidence.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchins

 

[Sargonski]

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?

As is said to be the case with myths -- there is usually some grain of truth somewhere in the mix. Was there a man behind the legend .. "The man, The Myth, The Legend"

Critical Scholarship says yes -- Bart Ehrman for Example will say that in all likelihood this Jesus person existed .. now whether the stories we have currently is an accurate representation of the fellow .. that is an entirely separate question. There were many "Messiah's" around the first century .. the Jews were a going concern .. having a temple .. the Hasmonean dynasty ---or what ever that was called .. Ths was a messianic time .. and Jews wanted more control over their state .. move towards the Glory days .. Strong Messianic Leaders ahd many run-ins with the Romans .. who ended up biting back .. destroying the Temple ---throwing all the Jews out of Jerusalem .. converted into a Pagan Holy Site..

Some Jewish Holy man .. talking in apocalyptic tones .. garnering a following --- round the same time of major political intrigue .. the Jews on a path of full out revolt against the Roman Empire ..the time of Jesus when the fires of revolution are just startig .. or more like it .. flaring up once again .. after long history of flar-ups .. See Maccabees ..

Were there such dudes .... there was O Plenty .. John the Baptist -- Regarded as a Modern day 1rst century prophet .. beat Jesus to the Punch in terms of Jewish Holy men talking in apocalyptic tones ..

Now .. this pupil of Rabbi Hillel -- Most famous Rabbi who is 100 Years old at the time .. one of the two schools of Jewish thought named after him .. an up and coming Jewish Rabbi --- as Jesus was .. would have sat on his knee as a young lad . Jesus recites Hillel and this teaching is the rock on which he bases his ministry ... salvation .. putting one right with God .. the whole thing .. .. who ever this fellow was .. or who ever was the fellow who made this fellow up was .. used Hillel ideas as base ideology .. went around -- gathered many followers .. perhaps learned some Tricks from the Egyptians .. was a wonder worker -- Nothing spectacuar or out of the ordinary here so far .. which fellow do you want to model Jesus after is the question .. not whether or not there was one.

 

[1213]

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

To me, Bible is the evidence. I don't think we would have it, if Jesus was not real.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yep, he very probably did. And I say that as an atheist. But the textual and archeological evidence supporting the notion that a 1st century itinerant Jew from the backwaters of Roman Judea pissed off some people in Jerusalem around the time of the Passover and was crucified for it is really strong. We have several independent lines of textual evidence (the number of independent attestations is frankly stagggering)- very rare in the ancient world. And the testimony of others, including Paul, who met Jesus's brother, and one of his disciples. This all would have occurred shortly after Jesus's death. If Jesus didn't exist, I think his brother (or at least his closest disciple) would know that.

So the idea that he didn't exist at all is just a mythicist fever dream that melts at the application of the slightest bit of critical scrutiny. Jesus not existing is a conspiracy theory on the level with flat earthism or ancient aliens or something. No serious scholar in a relevant field even so much as takes it seriously. Its a laughingstock conspiracy theory for cranks and weirdos.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

An itinerant preacher wandering the Levant in the early first century?
Not much evidence there, but then again, it's not an extraordinary claim, so could well be true.

How much evidence do you suppose there is for the countless other itinerant preachers of the time? The fact that there is any at all of this particular itinerant preacher is sort of remarkable, wouldn't you say? As you say, claims proportionate to evidence, and so this one probably checks out: an incredibly ordinary claim with some fairly ordinary evidence.

But lets consider a set of less extraordinary claims. How about instead of a "A miracle working, dead raising, virgin born, one part of a triune godhead who got killed and resurrected" we have a guy with some fanatical true believers who are going around telling people that this person works miracles, raises the dead, and so on. Well, the evidence actually looks pretty solid there too.

Obviously there was no actual miracle-working, corprse-resurrecting magic man, then as now. But that's a given. That goes out the window the moment we're talking about he historical Jesus. The historical one is the one who was, you know, historical. An actual flesh-and-blood human. With no magical powers, aside from an apparent ability to sweet-talk illiterate fishermen and farmers to follow him on his apocalyptic mission.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With no magical powers, aside from an apparent ability to sweet-talk illiterate fishermen and farmers to follow him on his apocalyptic mission.

Your petty condescension is unwarranted.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your petty condescension is unwarranted.

I'm sorry you took it that way or if you took offense, but I'm fine with what I said given the relevant context (.e. the poster that reply was directed towards)..

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Always wrth mentioning that I approach this and most topics from a scholarly point of view, so the religious/theological/etc elements are not given attention or weight. If we're doing history, we have to stay in our line- tracking the history of a man from ancient Galilee is a tall order but a doable one, ascertaining the history of divine men or miracle workers or any such thing simply falls outside the bounds of the discipline: we cannot test miracles, for instance. If you want to talk about the non-secular devotional/theological stuff, that's what Church is for.

 

[Heyo]

Obviously there was no actual miracle-working, corprse-resurrecting magic man, then as now. But that's a given. That goes out the window the moment we're talking about he historical Jesus. The historical one is the one who was, you know, historical. An actual flesh-and-blood human. With no magical powers, aside from an apparent ability to sweet-talk illiterate fishermen and farmers to follow him on his apocalyptic mission.

That's why I asked "which Jesus". When we talk about the wandering preacher and the believers talk about the miracle man, we are not talking about the same person.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Always wrth mentioning that I approach this and most topics from a scholarly point of view, ...

You mean like:

With no magical powers, aside from an apparent ability to sweet-talk illiterate fishermen and farmers to follow him on his apocalyptic mission.

I don't think so.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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?

We have plenty of historical evidence that James the brother of Jesus did in fact exist. And since James idolized his brother Jesus as the messiah, we can be sure Jesus existed as well.

A better question would be, what exactly do we know about Jesus? And the answer is, almost nothing. Jesus never wrote anything. All we have are the gospels, which are nothing more than collections of the various legends that had grown up around Jesus in the decades since his death. Certain things seem much more likely than others, but in the end, it is all debatable.

 

[sun rise]

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.

So it's a matter of belief not scientific proof.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's why I asked "which Jesus". When we talk about the wandering preacher and the believers talk about the miracle man, we are not talking about the same person.

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.