5 ms·

Yes he is. There is no proof that the Jesus existed. We have more effidence on thousand real existing people. Less fames perhaps but propper people.

by sigi45 8y ago

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
There is no reason to assume Jesus was not real. This issue was closed by historians over a hundred years ago and never has there been thrown any new light that puts it into doubt. It’s only fringe people with specific agendas, who always seem to lack the skills and knowledge to work with the sources, who claim otherwise. For a good overview of why historians know Jesus existed you should read John P. Meier - A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume I: The Roots of the Problem and the Person.
- deleted 8y ago
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    I guess you want proof like a physicist can deliver proof. If that is your standard than most of history does not exist due to lack of proof. Which is a ridiculous position to hold of course.
    - sigi45 8y ago
      No it is not. We do have a lot of original written and old text from different sources or other objects. Artefacts. Findings. Jesus as a person is very specific. There should be more proof then there is. From Julius Cäsar (who lived in the same timeperiod btw) does proof exists that he lived.
      - anjbe 8y ago
        > There should be more proof then there is. Julius Caesar was a military and political leader of a whole empire. The contemporaries who discussed him (namely Cicero and Sallust) were themselves influential Roman politicians living at the heart of the empire. Why would you expect some no‐name cult leader in an ancillary province, executed with common robbers in the lowest and most humiliating way possible, whose followers (common folk, fishermen and prostitutes) remained underground for over a hundred years due to persecution from both the Jewish and Roman authorities, to have artifacts and texts of the same level as Caesar, or even an order of magnitude less?
        redial 8y ago
        No one expect it. But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence. The first step must be to acknowledge that there is nothing about Jesus up until around the years 80~120. That simple FACT is uncontested by everybody, and it is also the only fact uncontested by everybody. That is nothing controversial, yet somehow here everyone that brings it up gets downvoted. Most of the "evidence" is from the second century onwards and written only by christians. You would need to go a couple of centuries forward to find real third-party references about him. Most historians consider this as proof of existence of a person 100 years earlier, that is also true. But I don't know why christians clench so tightly around historians on this issue, when it is also the opinion of most historians that the accounts about Jesus are not historical, and that most of the events told about him historically never happened. So, if we are gonna go with historians on this, then: 1) Jesus was a real person. 2) Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified.
        anjbe 8y ago
        > No one expect it. There are people in this thread who seem to. > But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence. And nobody has argued otherwise, merely that we have the exact level of proof that we would expect of someone of Jesus’ position in Jesus’ geographic location and time period. In fact, we have non‐Christian sources from around the turn of the century, which is why the consensus of historians is that Jesus lived and was executed in that time period. > Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified. Obviously, at least according to any scientific historic standard. But there are people who would deny even that, and can’t seem to accept the scholarly consensus that the man lived and died at all.
    - mbfg 8y ago
      You'd think that having a hoard of dead people raising up at the same time as Jesus's ressurection and roaming through the streets of Jerusalem would have made 'secular news'. What happen to those people? Did they just continue there lives like nothing happened, or did they decide en mass, after they had they're night of frivolity to go back to there graves and die again?
      - anjbe 8y ago
        The various miracles in the gospel narratives are obviously not given credence by secular historians. The existence and crucifixion of Jesus, on the other hand, is, primarily since there are non‐gospel and non‐Christian references to it within a few decades of the event in question.
        mbfg 8y ago
        That would seem to raise serious questions about the veracity of anything biblical, then. So if you discounted any evidence in the bible, based on the supposed dubiousness of other things there, what's left to build a case on.

Yes he is. There is no proof that the Jesus existed. We have more effidence on thousand real existing people. Less fames perhaps but propper people.

by sigi45 8y ago

Yes he is. There is no proof that the Jesus existed. We have more effidence on thousand real existing people. Less fames perhaps but propper people.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago

There is no reason to assume Jesus was not real. This issue was closed by historians over a hundred years ago and never has there been thrown any new light that puts it into doubt. It’s only fringe people with specific agendas, who always seem to lack the skills and knowledge to work with the sources, who claim otherwise. For a good overview of why historians know Jesus existed you should read John P. Meier - A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume I: The Roots of the Problem and the Person.

deleted 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  I guess you want proof like a physicist can deliver proof. If that is your standard than most of history does not exist due to lack of proof. Which is a ridiculous position to hold of course.
  - sigi45 8y ago
    No it is not. We do have a lot of original written and old text from different sources or other objects. Artefacts. Findings. Jesus as a person is very specific. There should be more proof then there is. From Julius Cäsar (who lived in the same timeperiod btw) does proof exists that he lived.
    - anjbe 8y ago
      > There should be more proof then there is. Julius Caesar was a military and political leader of a whole empire. The contemporaries who discussed him (namely Cicero and Sallust) were themselves influential Roman politicians living at the heart of the empire. Why would you expect some no‐name cult leader in an ancillary province, executed with common robbers in the lowest and most humiliating way possible, whose followers (common folk, fishermen and prostitutes) remained underground for over a hundred years due to persecution from both the Jewish and Roman authorities, to have artifacts and texts of the same level as Caesar, or even an order of magnitude less?
      - redial 8y ago
        No one expect it. But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence. The first step must be to acknowledge that there is nothing about Jesus up until around the years 80~120. That simple FACT is uncontested by everybody, and it is also the only fact uncontested by everybody. That is nothing controversial, yet somehow here everyone that brings it up gets downvoted. Most of the "evidence" is from the second century onwards and written only by christians. You would need to go a couple of centuries forward to find real third-party references about him. Most historians consider this as proof of existence of a person 100 years earlier, that is also true. But I don't know why christians clench so tightly around historians on this issue, when it is also the opinion of most historians that the accounts about Jesus are not historical, and that most of the events told about him historically never happened. So, if we are gonna go with historians on this, then: 1) Jesus was a real person. 2) Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified.
        anjbe 8y ago
        > No one expect it. There are people in this thread who seem to. > But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence. And nobody has argued otherwise, merely that we have the exact level of proof that we would expect of someone of Jesus’ position in Jesus’ geographic location and time period. In fact, we have non‐Christian sources from around the turn of the century, which is why the consensus of historians is that Jesus lived and was executed in that time period. > Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified. Obviously, at least according to any scientific historic standard. But there are people who would deny even that, and can’t seem to accept the scholarly consensus that the man lived and died at all.
  - mbfg 8y ago
    You'd think that having a hoard of dead people raising up at the same time as Jesus's ressurection and roaming through the streets of Jerusalem would have made 'secular news'. What happen to those people? Did they just continue there lives like nothing happened, or did they decide en mass, after they had they're night of frivolity to go back to there graves and die again?
    - anjbe 8y ago
      The various miracles in the gospel narratives are obviously not given credence by secular historians. The existence and crucifixion of Jesus, on the other hand, is, primarily since there are non‐gospel and non‐Christian references to it within a few decades of the event in question.
      - mbfg 8y ago
        That would seem to raise serious questions about the veracity of anything biblical, then. So if you discounted any evidence in the bible, based on the supposed dubiousness of other things there, what's left to build a case on.