-
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!
How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
- Thread starter Bunyip
- Start date
- Status
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Here we go again, about as interesting as playing duplicate bridge with yourself. Anyway, if what Josephus wrote about Jesus is creditable enough to be considered true, why is not what he wrote about Hercules also considered creditable enough to be considered true? Sounds like a Christian double standard to me.
The story about the Son of God that came to earth is based on an historical figure, no I am not kidding, I am not making this up, some believe there are facts to be garnered from the gospel narratives.
Last edited:
After all this time someone asked for a definition. Thank you.
For me when I talk about the historical Jesus, I am talking about a guy with the name Jesus (with proper language translation), living around 2000 years ago, born in Nazareth, met with a guy known as John the Baptist, started a somewhat small movement of his own, created some kind of fuss at the temple, and got crucified by the Romans. Seven little details there, enough I think to refer to a specific historical person.
roger1440
I do stuff
During the first century the Romans had crucified thousands of Jews. There were 100 Passovers during the first century. There were at least a handful of would be Messiahs that came and gone. Its difficult to get an accurate count on how many. Hmm, so what are the odds there was a historical Jesus?
I suppose it depends on which six. But yes I get the point, and it is open to negotiation.
This is where that funny thing called "evidence" comes in. Is there any evidence that his name was Clyde the Plunger?
outhouse
Atheistically
It can be said with certainty.
An Aramaic Galilean traveling teacher who lived in Nazareth and was baptized by John took over Johns movement after his death. He Made at least one trip to Jerusalem during Passover under the reign of Pontius Pilate while Caiaphas was running the temple.
He had caused some kind of disturbance in the temple in which he was arrested at night as to not cause a riot, and was crucified.
This is the foundation as it stands, that has historicity.
Other s can build from this, and they often do, mirroring their pet projects. These range from, Pharisee to Zealot my favorite choice, as well as an Essene by others.
But to say he does not exist, is simply a state of ignorance on the topic. And you don't know what this ignorance is until you sit under a professor for hours learning what we actually know and do not know.
An Aramaic Galilean traveling teacher who lived in Nazareth and was baptized by John took over Johns movement after his death. He Made at least one trip to Jerusalem during Passover under the reign of Pontius Pilate while Caiaphas was running the temple.
He had caused some kind of disturbance in the temple in which he was arrested at night as to not cause a riot, and was crucified.
This is the foundation as it stands, that has historicity.
Other s can build from this, and they often do, mirroring their pet projects. These range from, Pharisee to Zealot my favorite choice, as well as an Essene by others.
But to say he does not exist, is simply a state of ignorance on the topic. And you don't know what this ignorance is until you sit under a professor for hours learning what we actually know and do not know.
outhouse
Atheistically
Factually wrong
There is evidence of all kinds, good evidence, bad evidence, poor evidence, and great evidence.
Unfortunately most of it is not "great" The gospels are factual evidence, and so is Josephus. Even Pauls Epistles are evidence.
What do you think the word "evidence" means?
SoulDaemon
Member
Evidence yes but, I'd like to have more than evidence, that is not yet solid proof 
.
.
Shad
Veteran Member
There are two accounts of Jesus and one of John. John's passage is seen as authentic. Book 18, chapter 5, is seen has Christian interpolation and is partially authentic. Book 20, chapter 9, is seen as authentic but a number of people dispute this. There are a number of points which do not line up given the rest of the accounts within the whole text. So the only source which is agreed upon does nothing to support Jesus. The other two sources are contested. There is also the issue of sources used by Josephus which is simple put we do not know if his sources are heresay, common knowledge or reports from believers themselves. Roman sources make it clear that the sources are Christians themselves. Josephus makes no claims and we only rely upon the accuracy of verified events as an indictation his work on Jesus is the same. This is lazy scholarship in my opinion. The external sources for Jesus are very weak to put it nicely. However since fence sitting frowned upon people choose yay or nay.
Last edited:
We have evidence of ancient religious texts and no shortage of believers that repeat over and over again that they are reading the truth, in spite of the fact that there is not a single thing to substantiate the story about the Son of God that came to earth to redeem mankind.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I think the fact is, that there was never a Jesus.
has nothing to do with what we are talking about when we are talking about the historical Jesus.
outhouse
Atheistically
Evidence yes but, I'd like to have more than evidence, that is not yet solid proof
There is very little solid proof for any Aramaic Galilean Jews.
Yet there were tens of thousands.
- Status