4 ms·

I have never heard of any true historical proof of the existence of Jesus whatsoever. No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc. And

I have never heard of any true historical proof of the existence of Jesus whatsoever. No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc. And to top it off, his story ends with him rising from the dead!8-))

cat199 6y ago
> No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc. debate the authenticity all you want, but what exactly do you think the new testament is?
wolfgang42 6y ago
It’s hard to be sure of anything that happened so long ago, but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence, and scholars almost universally agree that there was at least a person by that name doing things in the area at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of... are two good places to start.
- finndark 6y ago
  Anecdotal evidence? Two thousand years later? "Consider the source!"
  - wolfgang42 6y ago
    The evidence which I described as ‘anecdotal’ starts a mere twenty or thirty years after Jesus’s death, and comes from sources who didn’t have any particular interest in promoting the Christian agenda. It seems that I may be unlikely to convince you, but if you’ve already got a strong opinion on this it might help to come at it from the other direction and start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independent_eyewitness_accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independ... first. Personally, I don’t really think it matters much either way (the events of a few decades being much less influential than the following two millennia of activities by people who did believe he existed), so I default to taking the word of people who’ve actually studied the matter in depth; but as he was one of several Roman-era Messiah claimants wandering around (we know of at least two others, and there were probably more whose names never made it into the histories we have) it seems reasonable that the group which happened to catch on would have also originally coalesced around an actual person.
throwawaytolk 6y ago
You can be easily disabused of this ignorant view by reading the wikipedia page for the historicity of jesus. Jesus mysticism is a fringe, crackpot view in historical scholarship. People adopt it because it suits their priors not because it has the weight of literally any scholarship or investigation behind it. It is , simply put, a ridiculous proposal in the light of what is known about the NT.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  My understanding (from reading a book called "who wrote the Bible") is scholars generally agree Jesus existed, but out of the 5 main objective criteria for "did a character exist", he only satisfies 3 of the 5. IIRC, the fact that he plays so prominently in modern life acts as an effect size: in the 3 categories he can be confirmed, he is off the charts. So it is generally accepted he existed, even if the criteria used to judge other historical characters is loosened for JC. Edit - but please try to not say things like "ignorant" or "disabused" unless you meant to attack OP. Those are pretty loaded words for a collegial discussion.
  - throwawaytolk 6y ago
    Even bart erhman has published in his hostoricity
eigenheart 6y ago
The criteria with which you dismiss the historical Jesus is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical Jesus is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).
- finndark 6y ago
  Jesus is ahistorical - no documents, no records. Everything about him written long after he died. In contrast Pontius Pilate is historical - there are extant documents with his name and title. Simply b/c Pontius Pilate was real doesn't mean Jesus Christ was real. And it certainly doesn't mean he rose from the dead!
- Ste_Evans 6y ago
  "as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response" Surprise, surprise. There may well have been a person, Jesus Christ. We don't know for sure. What we do know is that Gods, Demi-gods and dragons aren't real. If that isn't immediately obvious to you, you should seek psychiatric help for your mental delusions.
- Ste_Evans 6y ago
  @eigenheart The corollary of your delusion is that you also believe in the demi-god, HERACLES: The criteria with which you dismiss the historical HERACLES is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical HERACLES is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).
andrewon 6y ago
Existence of historical Jesus has been well established. First century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus wrote about him... For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments.
- wl 6y ago
  > First century Jewish historian Josephus Two mentions. One is almost certainly fabricated, or at least heavily rewritten by later Christians. > For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments. The Gospels aren't first person accounts. The closest you get to first person accounts of Jesus in the NT are brief mentions of Paul's conversion experiences in his epistles. The Gospels probably draw on first person accounts to some extent, but they themselves aren't first person accounts. There's a very strong case to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but you make a misleading one by leaving out some very important context regarding Josephus and mischaracterizing the accounts of Jesus in the NT.

cat199 6y ago

> No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc. debate the authenticity all you want, but what exactly do you think the new testament is?

wolfgang42 6y ago

It’s hard to be sure of anything that happened so long ago, but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence, and scholars almost universally agree that there was at least a person by that name doing things in the area at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of... are two good places to start.

finndark 6y ago
Anecdotal evidence? Two thousand years later? "Consider the source!"
- wolfgang42 6y ago
  The evidence which I described as ‘anecdotal’ starts a mere twenty or thirty years after Jesus’s death, and comes from sources who didn’t have any particular interest in promoting the Christian agenda. It seems that I may be unlikely to convince you, but if you’ve already got a strong opinion on this it might help to come at it from the other direction and start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independent_eyewitness_accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independ... first. Personally, I don’t really think it matters much either way (the events of a few decades being much less influential than the following two millennia of activities by people who did believe he existed), so I default to taking the word of people who’ve actually studied the matter in depth; but as he was one of several Roman-era Messiah claimants wandering around (we know of at least two others, and there were probably more whose names never made it into the histories we have) it seems reasonable that the group which happened to catch on would have also originally coalesced around an actual person.

throwawaytolk 6y ago

You can be easily disabused of this ignorant view by reading the wikipedia page for the historicity of jesus. Jesus mysticism is a fringe, crackpot view in historical scholarship. People adopt it because it suits their priors not because it has the weight of literally any scholarship or investigation behind it. It is , simply put, a ridiculous proposal in the light of what is known about the NT.

edmundsauto 6y ago
My understanding (from reading a book called "who wrote the Bible") is scholars generally agree Jesus existed, but out of the 5 main objective criteria for "did a character exist", he only satisfies 3 of the 5. IIRC, the fact that he plays so prominently in modern life acts as an effect size: in the 3 categories he can be confirmed, he is off the charts. So it is generally accepted he existed, even if the criteria used to judge other historical characters is loosened for JC. Edit - but please try to not say things like "ignorant" or "disabused" unless you meant to attack OP. Those are pretty loaded words for a collegial discussion.
- throwawaytolk 6y ago
  Even bart erhman has published in his hostoricity

eigenheart 6y ago

The criteria with which you dismiss the historical Jesus is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical Jesus is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).

finndark 6y ago
Jesus is ahistorical - no documents, no records. Everything about him written long after he died. In contrast Pontius Pilate is historical - there are extant documents with his name and title. Simply b/c Pontius Pilate was real doesn't mean Jesus Christ was real. And it certainly doesn't mean he rose from the dead!
Ste_Evans 6y ago
"as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response" Surprise, surprise. There may well have been a person, Jesus Christ. We don't know for sure. What we do know is that Gods, Demi-gods and dragons aren't real. If that isn't immediately obvious to you, you should seek psychiatric help for your mental delusions.
Ste_Evans 6y ago
@eigenheart The corollary of your delusion is that you also believe in the demi-god, HERACLES: The criteria with which you dismiss the historical HERACLES is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical HERACLES is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).

andrewon 6y ago

Existence of historical Jesus has been well established. First century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus wrote about him... For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments.

wl 6y ago
> First century Jewish historian Josephus Two mentions. One is almost certainly fabricated, or at least heavily rewritten by later Christians. > For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments. The Gospels aren't first person accounts. The closest you get to first person accounts of Jesus in the NT are brief mentions of Paul's conversion experiences in his epistles. The Gospels probably draw on first person accounts to some extent, but they themselves aren't first person accounts. There's a very strong case to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but you make a misleading one by leaving out some very important context regarding Josephus and mischaracterizing the accounts of Jesus in the NT.