Answer for: Did Jesus Exist?
#2 Of course
| 
23 Comments
Any true historian will concede that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.
Help Report a Bug About Grupthink Contact Us Blog/Press
© 2008 by Grupthink, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No claim of copyright or trademark is made to any material submitted by individual users. Any user-submitted material subject to copyright or trademark protection by third-parties is used solely for comment, criticism and discussion ("fair use").
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report alleged copyright infringement
Powered by grūpthink
Revision: 2059
Comments |
Leave a comment
Seems to me that many "true" historians do argue the existance of a historical Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia....Jesus_as_myth
See also:
http://www.nizkor.or...-hominem.html
Seems to me that such "historians'" credentials should be checked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells
"George Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He is married and lives in St. Albans, near London. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price
"Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954 in Mississippi) is a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary in Miami Gardens, Florida. He is a prominent religious skeptic, especially of orthodox Christian beliefs, a fellow of the controversial Jesus Seminar, and the author of many books and articles on religion. "
Not that I agree with their positions or anything, but I don't think that you can engage in wholesale dismissal of their historical credibility simply because they hold an unpopular, less-supported viewpoint.
The point is, no one really _knows_, even if it is most likely that Jesus did in fact exist.
All the historical evidence points to the reality of Jesus of Nazareth. Either you believe the evidence or you have no right to call yourself a historian. Nothing in history can be 'proved', that's just the way it is, but there's more evidence of Jesus in history than there is of Julius Caesar.
What evidence? There really is none. Everything ever written about him is hearsay. There are no records, no letters, no eyewitness accounts. Does that mean he didn't exist? No, it doesn't, but neither does any of it PROVE that he did. A true historian can not make a case for his existence based on facts, however, he or she may postulate that there is a reasonable assumption that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed. What many people have come to hold as facts, in reality are not FACTS at all.
@rph2go:
"All the historical evidence points to the reality of Jesus of Nazareth"
That's arguable too, as evidenced by this lengthy writeup:
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
And what specific evidence are you referring to that proves the existence of Jesus, outside of the bible?
We're talking about History here, people. Do you doubt the existence of every who lived before you? I hope not. There is more historical documentation for Jesus than for Alexander the Great, and Mohamed, or most any ancient personage.
"Either you believe the evidence or you have no right to call yourself a historian." On the contrary, a true historian takes nothing at face value and "evidence" can be fabricated.
rph2go:
"There is more historical documentation for Jesus than for Alexander the Great, and Mohamed, or most any ancient personage."
That's just an out and out lie. There are first hand accounts of Mohammed. He led an army into battle on multiple occasions and had a family which may well exist today (some dispute the succession). Alexander the great is documented across several different ancient cultures, he's even mentioned in the Koran. There is serious academic doubt to the existence of a manned named Yeshua who founded a religion during that time period.
Outside of the bible and other christian non-canonical gospels there is little to no proof for the existence of a historical Jesus. You would expect there to at least be contemporary memoirs or reports form local leaders about a man who hand-made a scourge and caused a riot in the temple.
Outside of religious text the most oft cited example of Jesus' historical existence is that of Josephus. However, there are only two passages that refer to Jesus. One is most likely a medieval forgery. The other simply refers to a man name "James, the brother of Jesus" and Jesus was an uncommon, but still occurring, name in that time period.
The passage that state "...Jesus who was the messiah" is most likely a forgery by later translators. For one thing, Josephus was jewish and was not known to have Christian sympathies, so why claim that this man was the messiah? Secondly Christian contemporaries of Josephus,like Origen, do not quote or ever mention this passage.
So where is all this supposed evidence that a man name Yeshua who started a religion ever existed between 6 BCE and 4CE (the biblical time periods)?
The 2nd passage (which is not disputed) reads "...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."
There's more (for the open-minded): http://www.rationalc...extrabib.html
Lets take a look at that link step by step
1. This site spits back the heavily contested Testimonium Falvium
2. The passage you site does have debate on whether or not the word "who was the Christ" appear in the earliest manuscripts. Some say it is a forgery, while others say that it was mistranslated from the greek meaning "was believed to be the Christ". Origen specifically says in his commentary on Matthew "he [Jospehus] did not accept Jesus as Christ".
3.Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius are all talking about the emperor(or local governors) having problems with Christians. No one doubts the existence of Christians.
4.Julius Africanus is explicety citing the work of the historian Thallus whose works have been mostly lost. The quote was concerning a solar eclipse, and it was Africanus who claimed that this must have been the darkness of the gospels. Then the quote disappears until the 9th century, when it is used by a Christian apologist.
5.Celsus was a roman philosopher living in egypt writing attacks against the christians. Yes, he did make an ad-hominem attack against jesus, but he never attests to the reliability of his knowledge. I can start railing against moses (or David, or Isiah, or Noah), but that doesn't mean that moses existed.
I am not making a claim of knowledge that Jesus certainly did not exist, I'm saying that there is very little evidence and that he most likely did not exist. Start looking at non-christian sources for your information as well, then you can see the real divisions. Use that critical thinking and let the conclusion follow the evidence, don't force the evidence to lead to a desired conclusion.
Now you're backtracking. You said "The other simply refers to a man name "James, the brother of Jesus" and Jesus was an uncommon, but still occurring, name in that time period." Now who's forcing the evidence?
I was mistaken about that passage. I freely admit that. Then i went and did more research about it.
Some of you people are saying that there is little or no evidence for Jesus except in the bible. what r u smokin?? Pretty much all Roman historians around the time of Jesus have written at sum point or another about a character called 'Jesus'. So how u can claim that such a person never existed is beyond me.
Name your sources.
Friar_Zero, Jesus EXISTS! This video is proof. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
how is this marked as well said?
"Sum point" "what r u smokin" no sources ?? its gross to look at
while we are discussing mod points, I know I hold an unpopular view, but what great grupthink ghost laid out the rules on how we are to use them, I'll mod stuff that looks ugly, I mod people who don't add pictures, hell, I'll mod stuff I don't agree with, and I'll mod up pretty much anything that is remotely funny, e-tact I lack, but w/e, mod points are satisfying to use ;)
i'm always wary about marking down a comment i merely disagree with provided that that comment adds something of substance to the current debate/thread. so let's go point by point!
I was unable to find anything titled "Smokin" by a person named "R U." Although I was aware of a song off the B-side of the eponymous Boston album.
As we stated before there have been no mention of any contemporary scholars discussing a character named "Jesus" or with any name similar enough to give credit. Feel free to check out the links provided by holotone at the top of the thread for all the various historians we have discovered.
It's quite easy to claim a person never existed. Proving it is another matter. For example, I can claim Socrates never existed. The best part of this statement is that it is not an extraordinary claim, but mere skepticism. The onus of proof of existence is upon the person making the positive existential claim.
I have absolutely no problem with sum1 not believin in God. I think no less of them than any other person. What i dont like is when people with such beliefs try to force them down your throat. But to deny to existence of Jesus is absurdity. sum1 b4 asked for my sources that a character called Jesus did exist. well i am about to give u a list of websites each with lots of historians around the time of Jesus. Bear in mind when you are reading that much of the evidence given for the existance of Jesus - the leader of the Christian faith - is given by christian haters who would have nothing to gain from lying. Furthermore, these are first hand accounts by some of the most reliable and accepted historians of the time, not just some random dribble of some second hand source from a couple of years ago
http://www.allaboutj...jesus-faq.htm
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
okay first off: http://www.grupthink...999&pap=1
secondly, you are just spitting back at us the passages we have already looked at. if you have someone who is was a contemporary who wrote about a person named "Jesus," please let us know.
for reference: the absolute latest date that is commonly accepted for Jesus's death is 36AD (although most likely it looks like 30AD or 33AD). Therefore, anyone born after 36AD cannot be considered contemporary.
Firstly, I am not 'spitting back' passages that have already been tackled. Of the 10 writers on the pages i have posted. 3 have been tackled (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius), with the same response given for each - that they were just writing about Caesers problems with Christians and that they mention nothing to do with a man called Christ. This is in fact false, in the passages i have given by these 3 people they all mention a man they call Christ - leader of the Christians.
Secondly, though my sources were not alive when Jesus was, they were still pretty close wouldnt u say? A couple of thousand years closer than yours anyway. Let me present you with a scenario - one of the most accepted historians alive today starts writing about a man who died a few years before he was born, you were also not alive when the man he was writing about was. Does that mean you would automatically assume what the historian is writing is false? Lets face it, you wouldnt. I dont see the difference here.
If I told you that there are a group of Men and Women who worshiped a man named "Muadib" and claim he is a living god who was persecuted by the Governor of a nearby state, is that proof that Muadib exists?
If I tell you, we're having problems with these Herculeans who worship a man named Hercules who was son of Zeus and persecuted by the Athenians, would that be proof that Hercules (Heracles for my greeks) existed?
I am describing their beliefs and attitudes. I did not say I knew Muadib and Hercules. I am an not claiming that their beliefs are true, I'm just explaining what they believe. No one doubts the existence of christians.
As for your piss poor example: Any respected historian writing about a contemporary figure would investigate multiple first hand sources and try to collect as many eye witness accounts as possible. We can go and interview the mans widow or girlfirend. Look at his IRS records, hopefully find photos. If all his friends tell us that he was the kindest man on the face of the planet, NO historian will stop there and accept that, they will ask others who knew him and have no emotional stake in the question.
There are NO FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS of Jesus. The gospels were written decades after his supposed death, the epistles were written centuries afterward, and the early church was in a constant state of dispute over which gospels were true and which were not.
There is a possibility that a man named Yeshua lived in the Levant between 4 BCE and 6 CE (http://skepticsannot...s_born.html). Yet there is academic dispute and reason to doubt that such a figure ever lived. I'm not trying to be dogmatic and tell you he never existed, I'm saying there is doubt and so the answer "of course" is intellectually dishonest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://www.infidels....r/hojfaq.html
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-myth_hypothesis