Historicity of Jesus

[SigurdReginson]

Here's an interesting video I found on the historicity of Jesus. I'm kind of ignorant in this particular case (it's something I never looked into too deeply), so I'm kind of curious to know what you guys think. If you are more knowledgeable in this field of study, would you agree with what this guy on the internet seems to conclude?

I'm going to put this on the religious debate forum to promote free discussion. Argue away!

 

[Rival]

SigurdReginson: I don't often debate, but when I do....



I hope this generates some good discussion. Have you seen Bart Ehrman on this?

 

[AlexanderG]

From what I know, there are zero contemporaneous writings about Jesus. The only writings about Jesus' life, actions, and sayings were recorded decades later, likely in Greece, by almost entirely anonymous authors, or authors who claimed to receive their information third hand at best.

The only extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus, which are again decades later, merely record the fact that there were some Christians and describe some of the things they believed. Josephus' well-known passage about Jesus refers to him as "the Christ" which no Jew of that time like him would do, and uses language inconsistent with the rest of his writings. It is considered by most biblical scholars to be a later forgery.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus never existed, but the severe lack of reliable evidence is a problem for Christianity, especially since you can see a clear trajectory of more exaggeration and more miraculous claims as the various gospels were written, the farther out in time you go. This chronological growth of the tale applies to the four gospels included in the bible, but also the other gospels that didn't end up getting voted in. It seems like I could extrapolate back to the source and have an entirely mundane story about a charismatic leader, like those we see starting random cults or MLMs today.

I think it's impossible to know who Jesus really was, and what he actually said and did. I wouldn't accept the sort of evidence found in the bible for any other kind of similar claims, and so I can't accept in there either.

Edit: I didn't watch the video, sorry. I just wanted to give my own take rather than react to it.

 

[SigurdReginson]

SigurdReginson: I don't often debate, but when I do....



I hope this generates some good discussion. Have you seen Bart Ehrman on this?

Hahaha! Eh... I don't debate at all. What's the point? That said, sometimes parsing the truth requires dissenting opinion, and sometimes that dissenting opinion comes in the form of raised voices.

Bart Ehrman? Haven't heard of em. Link me up!

 

[Rival]

Hahaha! Eh... I don't debate at all. What's the point? That said, sometimes parsing the truth requires dissenting opinion, and sometimes that dissenting opinion comes in the form of raised voices.

Bart Ehrman? Haven't heard of em. Link me up!

I'd just have a search on YT. He has many videos.

 

[Justanatheist]

It is widely accepted that Jesus is a historical figure by historians and for about 100 years since Albert Schweitzer that he was an apocalyptic Jew,

 

[SigurdReginson]

From what I know, there are zero contemporaneous writings about Jesus. The only writings about Jesus' life, actions, and sayings were recorded decades later, likely in Greece, by almost entirely anonymous authors, or authors who claimed to receive their information third hand at best.

The only extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus, which are again decades later, merely record the fact that there were some Christians and describe some of the things they believed. Josephus' well-known passage about Jesus refers to him as "the Christ" which no Jew of that time like him would do, and uses language inconsistent with the rest of his writings. It is considered by most biblical scholars to be a later forgery.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus never existed, but the severe lack of reliable evidence is a problem for Christianity, especially since you can see a clear trajectory of more exaggeration and more miraculous claims as the various gospels were written, the farther out in time you go. This chronological growth of the tale applies to the four gospels included in the bible, but also the other gospels that didn't end up getting voted in.

I think it's impossible to know who Jesus really was, and what he actually said and did. I wouldn't accept the sort of evidence found in the bible for any other kind of similar claims, and so I can't accept in there either.

I suggest you watch the video. He speaks about other sources aside from Josephus that historians fairly unanimously agree are authentic, and he explains a probable reason why there was a lack of information about his existence until later.

A lot of the sources he talks about didn't see Jesus or his followers in a positive light, and it's interesting to see how early Christianity was viewed from the outside from the mindset of ancient Romans.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I'd just have a search on YT. He has many videos.

Oh! I know this guy. I've seen his videos on inconsistencies of the bible. Imma watch what he has to say about Jesus. Thanks for pointing me in this direction!

 

[Justanatheist]

SigurdReginson: I don't often debate, but when I do....



I hope this generates some good discussion. Have you seen Bart Ehrman on this?

Read much of Bart, find him very un-biased. How Jesus became God is excellent. Do you consider Jesus was a apocalyptic?

 

[Rival]

Read much of Bart, find him very un-biased. How Jesus became God is excellent. Do you consider Jesus was a apocalyptic?

Basically just an apocalyptic preacher who gathered followers of unlearned Jews, who mostly had a political bone to pick.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Basically just an apocalyptic preacher who gathered followers of unlearned Jews, who mostly had a political bone to pick.

Yah, this seems very likely to me, too. That said, I haven't learned enough to say so with confidence. That's something that will require more research for me.

 

[Justanatheist]

Debate here with Robert Price one of the few people who still argue Jesus did not exist.

I found Price very unconvincing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suggest you watch the video. He speaks about other sources aside from Josephus that historians fairly unanimously agree are authentic, and he explains a probable reason why there was a lack of information about his existence until later.

A lot of the sources he talks about didn't see Jesus or his followers in a positive light, and it's interesting to see how early Christianity was viewed from the outside from the mindset of ancient Romans.

Thanks for the video. It was good. I learned something new. It seems on the plus side probable that historical Jesus is real.

 

[Yazata]

I don't really doubt that Jesus existed. But I'm not convinced that we know a whole lot about the actual man. Basically all that we have comes from the religious movement that grew up in his name, and serves the purposes of that movement. So it can't really be taken as objective history.

Jesus is portrayed traveling through Galilee and down to Jerusalem performing various acts and saying various things. Many of those actions seem to have been crafted to (sort of, you have to have lots of imagination) illustrate him fulfilling prophecies.

I'm not convinced that if we had a time machine that we could even locate him. There were probably multiple people in the area named 'Jesus' (or its Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent). What if none of them were doing what the gospels say Jesus did?

I am inclined to think that the crucifixion actually happened. It's just too embarassing a fact to invent to terminate the life of one supposedly being hailed as the messiah. It's not something that people would have made up if they could avoid having to explain it. So I'm speculating that it really happened. So I guess that a time traveler could use the crucifixion as an anchor to identify the guy crucified, then trace his history backwards to see what he did prior.

 

[Justanatheist]

Basically just an apocalyptic preacher who gathered followers of unlearned Jews, who mostly had a political bone to pick.

Thanks to @ChristineM I am reading the Fourth Philosophy just now, an interesting alternate view.

 

[Nakosis]

Here's an interesting video I found on the historicity of Jesus. I'm kind of ignorant in this particular case (it's something I never looked into too deeply), so I'm kind of curious to know what you guys think. If you are more knowledgeable in this field of study, would you agree with what this guy on the internet seems to conclude?

I'm going to put this on the religious debate forum to promote free discussion. Argue away!

My question would be whether the Jesus of Paul's mythology ever existed.
Paul's Jesus was a vision. How much of Paul's Jesus came from the Jewish community who followed Jesus as a Jewish messiah and how much came from Paul's vision of the Christ?

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks to @ChristineM I am reading the Fourth Philosophy just now, an interesting alternate view.

How are you finding it?

 

[Justanatheist]

How are you finding it?

Very interesting, but I am spending too much time on here!

 

[ChristineM]

Very interesting, but I am spending too much time on here!

Yeah, i know that feeling.

 

[SigurdReginson]

My question would be whether the Jesus of Paul's mythology ever existed.
Paul's Jesus was a vision. How much of Paul's Jesus came from the Jewish community who followed Jesus as a Jewish messiah and how much came from Paul's vision of the Christ?

I don't know, really. The Pauline idea of Jesus seems to be unique in the bible. I also notice he speaks with a lot more authority when compared to the other authors. A lot more...