-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What physical written accounts and proof do we have that Jesus existed?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
I'm curious about this myself. I've heard there is physical proof he existed but I've also heard there isn't. I've heard that his tomb and various other artifacts have been found, which would suggest he did exist. I've also heard that the Romans kept very detailed records of everyone the executed, when, where, and why, and that there is no record of a man by that name, in that general location, during that range of time, committing the crimes he was executed for. This would mean that he never existed at all and that his teachings were derived from a range of sources at the time and compiled into the works of one imagined man, much like how we view Homer today. This is the stance I tend to take, but given my minimal knowledge on actual archeological evidence (or lack thereof), I never claim to know this for certain. Perhaps we'll never know definitely if he ever existed, but as a professor of mine says, history and faith don't have to agree, biblical (or any other mythological) events don't have to be historically accurate to keep faith alive, they are separate truths in their own right.
allfoak
Alchemist
The reason that the historicity of Jesus has been in dispute for 2000yrs is because it is not a slam dunk.
Even the historians failed to mention him.
There is a disputed passage by Josephus, but it seems to me if there was some guy running around feeding 5000 people, no matter how much food he started with, it should have gotten the attention of someone.
Anyone who can do that is a definite military threat.
Even the historians failed to mention him.
There is a disputed passage by Josephus, but it seems to me if there was some guy running around feeding 5000 people, no matter how much food he started with, it should have gotten the attention of someone.
Anyone who can do that is a definite military threat.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Might want to take a look at THIS web site. "Non-biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people"
But as pointed out in a Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus,
"Intention and points of view" as in biases.
.
But as pointed out in a Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus,
"One of the chief problems confronting scholars interested in the historicity of Jesus, like that of the historicity of King Arthur, is that there are no contemporary records of his life or existence. Like many genuinely historical figures of antiquity, all records of his historicity come from one or more generations after his death, the earliest source being that found in the Epistles of Paul dated to AD 59, who discusses his crucifixion. Other sources such as that of Josephus or Tacitus date even later. Historians interested in the historicity of Jesus are confronted by discussing the nature of these historic records and the intention and points of view of their authors."
"Intention and points of view" as in biases.
.
Last edited:
First Baseman
Retired athlete
What's wrong with the Biblical texts? If you can't find anything that would lead you to conclude they are not genuine then why throw them out?
Skwim
Veteran Member
First Baseman
Retired athlete
First Baseman
Retired athlete
No. It's right because both history and archaeology support it rather than suggest it is lies.
allfoak
Alchemist
Riders
Well-Known Member
One of these sights was an advertisement to get me to subscribe to them the other looks pretty biased seems to make proof out statements that aren't proof like this.
This was written by Pliny about Christians not Jesus
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
I already know Chirstians exsited . this doesn't prove anything about Jesus existing its about Christians. There fore it seems to be an untrustworthy sight.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Not a single one of the texts cited on these pages were contemporary. The earliest they date to is 31 years after Jesus' supposed death, and absolutely none of the earliest ones reference any specific acts or miracles described in the Bible.
My position on the historicity of Jesus is kind of divided depending on what claim we are actually dealing with. For example, with regards to the claim "A person named Jesus existed around 2,000 years ago who played an instrumental role in the founding of the religious movement which is currently referred to as Christianity", I'm willing to accept that the relatively sparse evidence we have gives the claims of Jesus' existence the benefit of the doubt. It's not a particularly exceptional claim.
On the other hand, any more specific claims about Jesus, such as things he said or did and especially miracles he is said to have performed, have a far higher requirement for belief than any of the suggested evidence of Jesus' existence cited thus far. Again, when someone says "Jesus said X" I generally accept it for the sake of argument and practicality, but when it comes to really, seriously trying to historically verify something the supposed man supposedly did, things become a lot murkier. Especially when you factor in just how incredibly specific some of the claims made about Jesus are, and how none of his miraculous, widely-witnessed deeds are verified or even noted by any contemporary historians.
But, then again, I'm not a Biblical scholar.
Hearsay.
'Proof' is always the wrong word in this business. That Jesus existed as a man on earth is accepted by almost all serious researchers from the evidence. Whether He was God is a matter of opinion and definitions.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Sorry, but history and archeology don't support the world-wide noachian flood, the Tower of Babel and the creation of various languages, or any Garden of Eden. The Bible is all alone in these assertions.
.
Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger referred to Jesus Christ and his followers. Jesus never claimed to be God, but consistently referred to himself as God's Son. Few informed people deny that Jesus Christ was an historical person.
Glaurung
Denizen of Niflheim
You can't prove history, especially when we are dealing with antiquity. The best we can do is establish what is most plausible. Even if you reject the claims of divinity, the existence of Jesus is more plausible, and more parsimonious than the idea that he was invented whole cloth.
I mean, how much documentary evidence do you really expect there to be? Notwithstanding miracle and divinity claims, we're speaking of an itinerant Jewish preacher in first century Judea. It's simply not something the Romans are going to take too much note of. The New Testament texts (even if you reject the miracles and divinity claims) are more than enough to establish a core historicity. It's more than we have for Socrates and many other such (non-questioned) figures.
Riders
Well-Known Member
But we also know there was a whole entire Messiah movement, to me theres no proof that this guy was any different then whole group, maybe he was just a member of that group. It could also be that they just used the name Jesus to represent the whole movement or all of the messiahs??????????