4 ms·

Although I might be mistaken because I am sure there is a lot of misinformation out there on this topic, I was under the impression that there is pretty good ev

Although I might be mistaken because I am sure there is a lot of misinformation out there on this topic, I was under the impression that there is pretty good evidence that there was at least a Jewish profit named Jesus who lived at the time. Maybe someone else elaborate.

schtitt 9y ago
Yeah, to call the theory of an invented Jesus 'simpler' is quite a stretch, since you then would have to explain both the rise of Christianity, the gospel writings, and the records of Josephus the Jewish historian who did write about a prophet named Jesus. Simpler would in this case assuming there did indeed exist such a man.
driverdan 9y ago
There is some evidence but not "pretty good" evidence. There isn't much evidence written in the time he was supposed to have been alive. Most of it was written long after the fact by 3rd parties.
- lawpoop 9y ago
  Insofar as human history, there is pretty good textual evidence that a guy running around Palestine called Jesus attracted followers and was executed by the Roman state. We have as much evidence for that guy as we do many other historical figures. I shouldn't have to mention this, but I feel compelled: the claim of historical Jesus is not any kind of theological, religious, or supernatural claim (i.e. that any miracles occured). The problem is that intelligent autodidacts confuse the disciplines of science (developing theories and performing experiments to provide potentially disprovable evidence of universal, timeless laws of nature) and history (the study of written texts about events that occurred in the past) and the types of evidence acceptable to both fields. Hint: they're completely different. The problem is that, if you want to advance a historical theory claiming that there was no historical guy called Jesus who inspired the gospel, you have to come up with a compelling theory, based on historical (written records from the past) evidence describing who built the first churches, who wrote the first gospels, why they made up a story about a Palestinian Jew who was crucified 300 years ago, and why that story was so compelling it caught on with the masses and elites alike. Or you could just go with the idea that there was a guy running around the middle east 2,000 years ago, who pissed of the Jewish and Roman elite, so much to the point that he was executed. And about whom miracles were claimed to have been performed. The thing is, for all religions developing where we have iron-clad evidence (Mormonism, Scientology, etc), it always starts with a charismatic leader who attracts a following. Throw a rock in India, and you can find any number of gurus who are said to be capable of levitating, not eating for long periods of time, etc. etc. There is nothing really extraordinary about the story of Jesus, comparatively speaking. If you're going to make a historical theory that Jesus never existed, but instead was invented by someone else, you have to identify that someone else. In fleshing out your theory, you'll probably want to say why they invented it, and why it caught on, when many other small cults and gurus petered out. Christianity didn't arise out of nowhere in, say, England in 1500.
- beezlbubba 9y ago
  I guess these terms are subjective qualifiers, but by any standard of evidence for the existence of historical figures, the evidence is comparatively better than most. As to timeframe: A lot of key written evidence of Jesus was authored within a century of his life, which comparatively is "pretty good" as far as these things go. Much written evidence of historical events or people that we have wasn't contemporary to the subject in question either, but authored by historians, sometimes far later than a century. By that standard, the contemporaneousness is "pretty good". As to Sources: In addition to the synoptic gospels, you also have non-Christian, non-sympathetic sources such as Tacitus referring to the Crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. Or Josephus. This represents a variation of disconnected sources (not informed by each other), that by any standard is comparatively better than most. So the quality of the evidence is built upon not only the _quantity_ of accounts, but the variation of sources, and the general agreement of even basic facts (existence, death). This quality is better evidence than we have of many historical figures that we assume to be real. And as another comment pointed out, the simplest explanation is that this doesn't represent a grand conspiracy of disconnected ancients.
  - basch 9y ago
    >Much written evidence of historical events or people that we have wasn't contemporary to the subject in question either, but authored by historians, sometimes far later than a century. Thats not an argument for the accuracy of the story, thats an argument against the accuracy of the rest of history.
- empath75 9y ago
  You'd have to question the existence of a lot of Greek philosophers by that standard.
beezlbubba 9y ago
I may be as well, but am also under the impression there is more textual evidence of Jesus' existence (more surviving independently written accounts) than of many other historical figures or events of that time whose existence we just take for granted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

schtitt 9y ago

Yeah, to call the theory of an invented Jesus 'simpler' is quite a stretch, since you then would have to explain both the rise of Christianity, the gospel writings, and the records of Josephus the Jewish historian who did write about a prophet named Jesus. Simpler would in this case assuming there did indeed exist such a man.

driverdan 9y ago

There is some evidence but not "pretty good" evidence. There isn't much evidence written in the time he was supposed to have been alive. Most of it was written long after the fact by 3rd parties.

lawpoop 9y ago
Insofar as human history, there is pretty good textual evidence that a guy running around Palestine called Jesus attracted followers and was executed by the Roman state. We have as much evidence for that guy as we do many other historical figures. I shouldn't have to mention this, but I feel compelled: the claim of historical Jesus is not any kind of theological, religious, or supernatural claim (i.e. that any miracles occured). The problem is that intelligent autodidacts confuse the disciplines of science (developing theories and performing experiments to provide potentially disprovable evidence of universal, timeless laws of nature) and history (the study of written texts about events that occurred in the past) and the types of evidence acceptable to both fields. Hint: they're completely different. The problem is that, if you want to advance a historical theory claiming that there was no historical guy called Jesus who inspired the gospel, you have to come up with a compelling theory, based on historical (written records from the past) evidence describing who built the first churches, who wrote the first gospels, why they made up a story about a Palestinian Jew who was crucified 300 years ago, and why that story was so compelling it caught on with the masses and elites alike. Or you could just go with the idea that there was a guy running around the middle east 2,000 years ago, who pissed of the Jewish and Roman elite, so much to the point that he was executed. And about whom miracles were claimed to have been performed. The thing is, for all religions developing where we have iron-clad evidence (Mormonism, Scientology, etc), it always starts with a charismatic leader who attracts a following. Throw a rock in India, and you can find any number of gurus who are said to be capable of levitating, not eating for long periods of time, etc. etc. There is nothing really extraordinary about the story of Jesus, comparatively speaking. If you're going to make a historical theory that Jesus never existed, but instead was invented by someone else, you have to identify that someone else. In fleshing out your theory, you'll probably want to say why they invented it, and why it caught on, when many other small cults and gurus petered out. Christianity didn't arise out of nowhere in, say, England in 1500.
beezlbubba 9y ago
I guess these terms are subjective qualifiers, but by any standard of evidence for the existence of historical figures, the evidence is comparatively better than most. As to timeframe: A lot of key written evidence of Jesus was authored within a century of his life, which comparatively is "pretty good" as far as these things go. Much written evidence of historical events or people that we have wasn't contemporary to the subject in question either, but authored by historians, sometimes far later than a century. By that standard, the contemporaneousness is "pretty good". As to Sources: In addition to the synoptic gospels, you also have non-Christian, non-sympathetic sources such as Tacitus referring to the Crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. Or Josephus. This represents a variation of disconnected sources (not informed by each other), that by any standard is comparatively better than most. So the quality of the evidence is built upon not only the _quantity_ of accounts, but the variation of sources, and the general agreement of even basic facts (existence, death). This quality is better evidence than we have of many historical figures that we assume to be real. And as another comment pointed out, the simplest explanation is that this doesn't represent a grand conspiracy of disconnected ancients.
- basch 9y ago
  >Much written evidence of historical events or people that we have wasn't contemporary to the subject in question either, but authored by historians, sometimes far later than a century. Thats not an argument for the accuracy of the story, thats an argument against the accuracy of the rest of history.
empath75 9y ago
You'd have to question the existence of a lot of Greek philosophers by that standard.

beezlbubba 9y ago

I may be as well, but am also under the impression there is more textual evidence of Jesus' existence (more surviving independently written accounts) than of many other historical figures or events of that time whose existence we just take for granted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus