both of your sources are either heavily biased by being written by someone of your faith or straight up Christian apologists. While theologians do agree; for the most part, that there was a man named Jesus and further, some agree that he was a prophet or one of the great teaches, such as Plato, The Buddha, etc, there is no true physical evidence that can be stated to be 100% proof.
-
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
both of your sources are either heavily biased by being written by someone of your faith or straight up Christian apologists. While theologians do agree; for the most part, that there was a man named Jesus and further, some agree that he was a prophet or one of the great teaches, such as Plato, The Buddha, etc, there is no true physical evidence that can be stated to be 100% proof.
It does have support however that is a far cry from stating it is 100% factual. And the fact remains that it was written by man. It may or may not have been divinely inspired but the fact remains that the Bible contains far too many mistakes to concur that it was written by God. After all, God, we hope, would not make mistakes.
I agree that most credible theologians agree that a man named Jesus did exist. But I have to disagree that Jesus didn't claim to be God. For example, John 10:30-33 - Jesus answered them, “I and My Father are one.”. Now I grant you that there are other verses that seem to intimate the opposite, such as John 14:6-7 - Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” But then again we find this: Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” All of this leads me to the conclusion that the various writers of the NT wrote from their own POV and that may have been incorrect. Clearly, you can see the obfuscation these verses depict.
Jesus did say he and his Father are one. But he also prayed to God that his disciples " may be one just as we are one." (John 17:11) Jesus obviously did not mean his disciples would be one person but rather that they would be unified, just as he said he was with the Father. (John 10:38) Jehovah is the Alpha and the Omega mentioned at Revelation 1:8. Verse 1 says God gave the Revelation to Jesus, something not possible if Jesus is God.
Augustus
…
I assume you are not a fan of ancient history in all of its forms?
Thinking of the process of studying ancient history can be critiqued using modern legal terminology is fallacious. If 'hearsay' wasn't considered valuable evidence by historians, most of our knowledge of ancient history wouldn't exist.
Senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus was more likely (imo) to be getting information on Jesus' death from the Roman records rather than Christians.
For a chap who died an impoverished Jew 200 years ago, he is pretty well attested to from a variety of independent, near contemporary sources, including 'neutral' sources like Tacitus. This is pretty much the 'gold standard' for ancient history, at least as far as identifying that a man called Jesus actually existed.
There's arguably better evidence for Jesus existing than there is for Muhammed, and nobody seriously questions whether or not an Arab called Muhammed existed in the 7th C.
That you are unconvinced is more about having unrealistic expectations of what evidence should exist. There is actually quite a lot of evidence, when people say there is hardly any they are displaying an unfamiliarity with the reality of historical enquiry.
Riders
Well-Known Member
You havnt presented any ancient history that proves his existence.Making announcements that theres more evidence on Jesus then any other ancient savior doesn't make it so.
The Egyptians had tons more proof then anything you've presented including their bodys wrapped up as Mummies and they claimed their Pharaohs had everlasting life too.Their leaders died for them too and promised to come back to life too and theirs tons of stuff written about them.
Augustus
…
And stating that the evidence isn't convincing based on a poor grasp of history doesn't make it so. By your standards there are very few figures we can 'prove' existed who lived over 1000 years ago.
The Pharoahs were the rulers of empires, Jesus was a Jew who died a pauper and had a small number of followers. Precisely what evidence do you expect would exist for him? In your opinion, what would constitute good quality evidence that he existed as a person (not that the Biblical account is historically accurate)?
Josephus discusses Jesus and John the baptist, as well as Jesus' brother (even though part of it is an interpolation). Tacitus, a non-Christian Senator with access to Roman historical records, confirms he was crucified under Pilate (exactly the sort of thing he would find in the records)
That these 2 corroborate aspects of the Biblical story is evidence in favour. Letters written by Paul, a servant of Jesus, who knew Jesus' brother (the one confirmed by Josephus).
If you are so sceptical about his existence, why not be more sceptical about the alternative: that a group of people invented him out of thin air shortly after he was crucified, chose to invent a prophet who had a humiliating death in a way that could be disproved if there were no Roman records crucifixion, acted out a charade to convince people he had a brother, convinced the Jewish religious establishment that he was real and did this so well that none of the many enemies of the early Christians ever doubted he was a real person despite holding him in great contempt.
So what would you consider acceptable evidence that would make it probable that he existed as a man?
Riders
Well-Known Member
Any of the writings you mentioned if I take them to be true doesn't say he was God and wasn't proof of the Trinity. Personally using the bible to prove he was who you say he was is not good enough but say I did use the bible as proof.
The bible doesn't say anything about the Trinity and doesn't claim he was God. So IMO even the Bible itself doesn't say he was who you say he was.
The historical documents could be alluding to several people named Jesus or a group of Christs as well, there was a Messiah movement going on then .
The bible doesn't say anything about the Trinity and doesn't claim he was God. So IMO even the Bible itself doesn't say he was who you say he was.
The historical documents could be alluding to several people named Jesus or a group of Christs as well, there was a Messiah movement going on then .
Augustus
…
I'm only arguing that a man called Jesus existed, was crucified by the Romans and gave birth to a religious movement. The Gospels are highly mythologised, I certainly don't think they give an accurate account of the historical Jesus. I'm not a Christian.
Josephus and Tacitus aren't, and they confirm aspects of the Bible (in the sense that it is based on real people, not in the sense that it is an accurate historical document overall).
You can't 'prove' anything as regards ancient history, only work out what is probable and what is not. It is highly probable Jesus the man existed, and highly improbable that the Gospels are accurate in their entirety.
I decided to take this opportunity to record part of an exchange between me and a well-known mythicist, mainly because I don't want such details lost.
By Earl Doherty:
P .S. Yes, Legion scored one point. I did say Paul went to Jerusalem only once, when of course it was twice by his own words. I may have had in mind that in the first 17 years of his missionary life he only had one opportunity to learn about Jesus from his disciples. (Oops, guess that destroys my entire case and shows me up to be a fraud and an incompetent.)
Earl Doherty"
By Earl Doherty:
P .S. Yes, Legion scored one point. I did say Paul went to Jerusalem only once, when of course it was twice by his own words. I may have had in mind that in the first 17 years of his missionary life he only had one opportunity to learn about Jesus from his disciples. (Oops, guess that destroys my entire case and shows me up to be a fraud and an incompetent.)
Earl Doherty"
Now there's a radically new question. I wonder how this thread will evolve.
Shad
Veteran Member
Which is an interpolation by Christians as no Jew would call him the Christ as it is acknowledge him as the Messiah. Also your work is centuries out of date.
I believe it was Origen in Contra Celsum circa 248 CE. See, for example, Alice Whealey's The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
There is a problem with 'Jesus is a g-d, however He isn't the other deity /His father, theology.
There is also a problem, //many problems/, with 'Jesus was a man, merely a prophet, so forth.
Some examples of the problems you have with both of these ideas/perspectives.
-The O.T, makes it clear that no other G-d besides the G-d /of the Torah//and Tanach, and Christian Bible, which according to Christians, is called The Old Testament, can be adhered to; no other G-d before G-d. Now, a deific Jesus, but not the Father, is dividing the 'Godhead'. This is polytheism, of course. In another tradition, this wouldn't matter, //as in the case of many polytheistic religions/, however, in the Judaic religious paradigm, monotheism is paramount. You simply can't have multiple deities you adhere to, and at the same time, follow the Hebraic or Judaic religious parameters of belief.
-The 'Jesus is merely man', problems. Some of these are obvious. Normal Rabbis and fishermen, do not walk on water. They do not ascend, and so forth. This is clearly not a ''normal'', or average fisherman Rabbi. The idea, that, these are fictional references, is great, however, for a ''Christian'', to claim that //ie the Bible is essentially fiction/, is ridiculous. These Christians who propose this, also want to tell people, that Jesus had a ''message''. Of course, they can separate the fiction from the fact in the Bible, and tell everyone what the 'true message'', is ,that they are gleaning from this fictional book. This is asinine, and should be discounted immediately. The ''fictional book but some of it is non-fiction', idea, is of course proposed by many non-Christians. This is fine, however, also employs the idea that they can tell what is fiction, and what isn't, in the Scripture. This is also ridiculous.
Shad
Veteran Member
The Christ part is widely accept as such. I think you read more into my comment than I intended. However I can see why as I assumed people would know about the sources they bring up and know this. At the least others would know what I meant However this was in error. /shrug
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Jesus wasn't the only miracle worker, however. Jesus could walk on water while Moses could split a sea. Jesus fed a few thousand at one sermon while Elijah (I think) gave a family the equivalent to an everlasting gobstopper for the rest of their lives. Jesus woke up one comatose kid and a dead guy. Other prophets rose people from the dead as well. Jesus has clear limitations: even HE is not stupid enough to jump off a cliff because Satan asks him to and he never tries to heal John the Headless Baptist. If he were God, why the limitations?
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
We seem to have a confusion in this thread (surprise, surprise!) between two very different questions:
1. Was there a man Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph?
2. Are the claims made about him in the New Testament true?
As far as (1) goes, the answer is obviously yes. We have Marks' Gospel (based on the memories of Peter) and Matthew's collection of sayings (which I presume to be the source Q that scholars identified in Luke and Matthew): these do not show any anachronisms and are attested to by a writer (Papias) from less than a century later. For comparison, we have no contemporary sources for Pythagoras or Confucius! We have historians writing less than a century after his death: Josephus and Tacitus. Above all, no-one in Antiquity ever said "What evidence is there that this Jesus you worship actually existed?"
On the other hand, (2) is a very different question.
The gospels attributed to Matthew, Luke, and John were unknown to Papias. Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but contradict each other about how it came about, and Luke's account is historically impossible. Luke's account of the actions of Paul after his vision on the road to Damascus contradicts Paul, yet the real Luke was a friend of his. John thought that the crucifixion occurred on a Thursday! It's clear that these three gospels are not by the men whose names they bear and were written some time between 120 and 170. They contain genuine material, but mixed with a lot of fiction.
If we turn to the early sources, none of them suggest that the 1st century Christians considered Jesus to be divine:
> Mark has nothing to say about incarnation.
> Paul describes Jesus as physically descended from David, which implies that he was the son of Joseph.
> Josephus says the Christians believed Jesus was the messiah.
> Clemens Romanus describes Jesus as the "mirror of God".
It's clear that the first Christians considered Jesus to be the promised messiah, not an incarnation of God, and his own statements suggest that's what he considered himself to be: "Son of Man" is the term used for the messiah in the Book of Enoch.
1. Was there a man Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph?
2. Are the claims made about him in the New Testament true?
As far as (1) goes, the answer is obviously yes. We have Marks' Gospel (based on the memories of Peter) and Matthew's collection of sayings (which I presume to be the source Q that scholars identified in Luke and Matthew): these do not show any anachronisms and are attested to by a writer (Papias) from less than a century later. For comparison, we have no contemporary sources for Pythagoras or Confucius! We have historians writing less than a century after his death: Josephus and Tacitus. Above all, no-one in Antiquity ever said "What evidence is there that this Jesus you worship actually existed?"
On the other hand, (2) is a very different question.
The gospels attributed to Matthew, Luke, and John were unknown to Papias. Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but contradict each other about how it came about, and Luke's account is historically impossible. Luke's account of the actions of Paul after his vision on the road to Damascus contradicts Paul, yet the real Luke was a friend of his. John thought that the crucifixion occurred on a Thursday! It's clear that these three gospels are not by the men whose names they bear and were written some time between 120 and 170. They contain genuine material, but mixed with a lot of fiction.
If we turn to the early sources, none of them suggest that the 1st century Christians considered Jesus to be divine:
> Mark has nothing to say about incarnation.
> Paul describes Jesus as physically descended from David, which implies that he was the son of Joseph.
> Josephus says the Christians believed Jesus was the messiah.
> Clemens Romanus describes Jesus as the "mirror of God".
It's clear that the first Christians considered Jesus to be the promised messiah, not an incarnation of God, and his own statements suggest that's what he considered himself to be: "Son of Man" is the term used for the messiah in the Book of Enoch.