Did Christ really exist ?

[Jayhawker Soule]

A case along those lines is not very hard to make.

And yet most historians that address the question find the case unconvincing.

 

[Heyo]

Legend conflates, but I think it far more likely that the Jesus of the bible was a single person.

Multiple persons / mistaken identity are one of the simplest explanations for some discrepancies in the gospels. Others are better explained by intentionally fitting the stories to the prophecies. Sometimes Hanlon's Razor doesn't cut it.

 

[Brian2]

Not true. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny talked about Christians and their beliefs, but saw them as strange and somewhat subject to ridicule. They did NOT write about any historical Jesus. Josephus has a couple of passages then mention Jesus, but scholars see them as being later additions and NOT due to Josephus himself.

Paul from a time very close to the death of Jesus, and others, wrote about Jesus and believed He existed.
Scholars see parts of the Josephus quotes as being later additions.
Bart Ehrman ridicules the idea that Jesus did not exist.

 

[Brian2]

Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny also wrote in the early 2nd century, and were not contemporaries of Jesus. Josephus was born about seven years after Jesus died, if the common chronology is accepted, and therefore was also not a contemporary, although his works date to the 1st Century...starting almost 50 years after Jesus' death.

Sounds like we should reject anything they say about events that happened before they were born.

 

[Audie]

Some made the claim that Jesus never existed. Even many antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are mythologized history.

Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant said:"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel".

Is it possible that a person who never lived could have affected human history so remarkably?

The ‘Historians History of the World’ says: "The historical result of Jesus' activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth." Even calendars today are based on the year that Christ was born.

Critics however point out that all we know about Jesus is only found in the Bible and that no other records concerning him exist. For instance H.G. Wells wrote:" The old Roman historians ignored Jesus entirely; he left no impress on the historical records of his time. But...is this true?
No, its not.
Respected first century historian who wrote about Christ are:
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "The independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

The Encyclopedia Britannica stated" " Many a modern student have become so preoccupied with conflicting theories about Jesus and the Gospels that they have neglected to study these basic sources (the Gospels) by themselves."

What is true is that most that we know about Jesus was recorded by his first-century followers. Their reports have been preserved in the Gospels.

God himself commanded: "Listen to him".
Why would we want to listen to anyone else ?

What of "Jesus" teachings is unique?
No precedent in the middle east,
nothing that corresponds in traditions that had no contact with middle eastern thought?

 

[Brian2]

There was probably someone who inspired the stories, a shaman of sorts who provoked the ire of Rome and was put to death. But he wasn't a messiah or anything of the sort. Had people been returning to life then (as Jesus wasn't the only one) the Romans themselves very likely would have recorded it then.

The resurrection of Jesus was not witnessed by all and the raising of Lazarus etc was also not witnessed by all. At best the Romans would have been recording hearsay and superstitious beliefs of fanatics. Why would they do that? The Talmud does see Jesus as a miracle worker however.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Multiple persons / mistaken identity are one of the simplest explanations for some discrepancies in the gospels.

For example?

 

[Brian2]

All of the existing documents were apparently written decades to centuries after the end of his reputed life, sometimes by people who had no clear idea of the historical or religious situation in Judaea and Gallilee was.

The gospels are dated to between 20 and 40 years after Jesus death, except for John's gospel which was written late in the century.

 

[Audie]

Most scholars of antiquity are in agreement that Jesus existed, particularly that He was an itinerant Jewish preacher, was baptised and crucified. Unfortunately there are no documents from anyone we can reliabily identify as having been an eyewitness to the events recorded in the four Gospels. There isn't agreement as to who wrote the Gospel accounts. It is important to be aware of the limitations of available records if we are serious about establishing facts as opposed to making statements regarding religious belief.

Can "he" be really said to have existed if most of what is said is untrue? If none of it is true ?

 

[Brian2]

There is little reason to think the early Christians were any less delusional than their modern day counterparts on the matter.

One reason is the bible itself. The written record has no original in existence. It could all be a fraud for all we know.

Another is the early Christians were rarely documented in roman archeological record as being anything significant past the mythology of the day.

Definitely a conspiracy by a band of fanatics to deceive people. If only they could have agreed on the details of the story.
Then again many say that the details are what show the stories to be witness accounts.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Can "he" be really said to have existed if most of what is said is untrue? If none of it is true ?

Myths often spring up about foundational figures. Every society or group has founding myths.

George Washington is a good example. Did he really toss a coin across the Potomac or chop down the cherry tree? Did he really have a vision at Valley Forge? The first appearance of these stories occur decades after his death.

The coin toss is meant to suggest that he was physically strong, the cherry tree that he was honest, the vision that he was chosen by god.

 

[Brian2]

Magic, for me, is a clear sign that a story is a fairy tale or at least vastly exaggerated.

I guess that closes the door.

 

[Audie]

I agree with your first statement. We must weigh the evidence. Jesus performed miracles, not that many, but enough to make him astounding. And there were miracles said to have been performed by others before him. Again, not that many but enough for me to think it was not legend.

" Miracles " are standard fare, world wide, through time and religions. Gullible people believe in them.

 

[Audie]

Myths often spring up about foundational figures. Every society or group has founding myths.

George Washington is a good example. Did he really toss a coin across the Potomac or chop down the cherry tree? Did he really have a vision at Valley Forge? The first appearance of these stories occur decades after his death.

True. I was thinking more like Washington's hatchet.

 

[Brian2]

We know from numerous historical original source documents that the Apostles existed, and started the churches. It seems to me that this would not have happened if Jesus were to be completely fictitious. Now, does that mean that the gospel accounts are accurate? No, we can't conclude that -- they were written decades later. But I think it is fair to say that a historical Jesus existed, and that we can perhaps pull him out of the soup of later editing in of Christian doctrine and Greek mythology, to get to know him a little bit as a nice Jewish man who taught Torah, engaged in debates on Jewish law as was the custom of the time, and who aspired to be the messiah but failed.

He is the guy who fulfilled Isa 53 however and is the one who is the salvation of the Gentiles (Isa 49:6) and who was responsible for the Word of God going from Jerusalem to the world. (Isa 2)

 

[Wandering Monk]

Romulus and Remus suckled by a she-wolf.

 

[Wandering Monk]

He is the guy who fulfilled Isa 53 however and is the one who is the salvation of the Gentiles (Isa 49:6) and who was responsible for the Word of God going from Jerusalem to the world. (Isa 2)

Not. This 'fulfilment' is a Christian interpolation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The gospels are dated to between 20 and 40 years after Jesus death, except for John's gospel which was written late in the century.

Out of curiosity, which gospel is dated to the mid 50's?

 

[Heyo]

I guess that closes the door.

The Illiad is full of magic but Troy really existed.
The Arthur saga is full of magic but historians belief that a king existed in Britain who united at least some tribes.
There may have been a house of Nibelungen.

Sagas and legends often get embellished with magic. The task is to find the truth between the lines.

 

[firedragon]

Some made the claim that Jesus never existed. Even many antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are mythologized history.

Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant said:"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel".

Is it possible that a person who never lived could have affected human history so remarkably?

The ‘Historians History of the World’ says: "The historical result of Jesus' activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth." Even calendars today are based on the year that Christ was born.

Critics however point out that all we know about Jesus is only found in the Bible and that no other records concerning him exist. For instance H.G. Wells wrote:" The old Roman historians ignored Jesus entirely; he left no impress on the historical records of his time. But...is this true?
No, its not.
Respected first century historian who wrote about Christ are:
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "The independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

The Encyclopedia Britannica stated" " Many a modern student have become so preoccupied with conflicting theories about Jesus and the Gospels that they have neglected to study these basic sources (the Gospels) by themselves."

What is true is that most that we know about Jesus was recorded by his first-century followers. Their reports have been preserved in the Gospels.

God himself commanded: "Listen to him".
Why would we want to listen to anyone else ?

You stated some good things. Logical thinking as well. Yet you concluded with your last statement that says "the reports have been preserved in the Gospels". And you said that "What is true is that most that we know about Jesus was recorded by his first-century followers".

This is not to offend you but that's purely a faith statement, not a historical finding. You are trying to historically establish that Jesus lived but by that you are trying to conclude with a completely faith based assertion.