So did Jesus live or what?

[Seismosaurus]

I've seen the claim from fundies several times lately that Jesus definitely existed and that all serious historians agree on this point - the debate is purely about whether he was actually God incarnate or just a man.

My natural inclination is that this claim is probably akin to "Evolution has been disproved", but I know nothing of the subject so what gives? What do actual historians think and how strong is the evidence for Jesus compared to say Ceasar or other historical figures?

 

[kmortis]

A man named Jesus most likely lived in the time period that is usually attributed to the same one the religion is based on. Did he necessarily do all the things we're told about him? Dunno. Did he say all the stuff usually attributed to him? Dunno.

 

[kuroyume0161]

There are too many variables.

Did a god-man named Jesus the Christ live exactly as it is written in the NT? - Almost certainly not.

Did a god-man ever exist? - Almost certainly not.

Did a man named Jesus exist? - Well, of course. Lots of men named Jesus lived during this time and in this region. Well, they weren't named 'Jesus', but the original Jewish of 'Yeshua'. We'll accept that for later references to 'Jesus', okay?

Did a man named Jesus exist who was the inspiration for the religion? - Maybe.

Did any man exist who was the inspiration for the religion? Very possibly. There is a lot of controversy about attributions, inconsistencies, evidence, and so forth.

The problem is that not even the so-called authors of the NT gospels are considered to be who they say they are. And the timing of the writings is far after the supposed death of this supposed Jesus. Add to that the interpolations of miraculous events, mixing of mythologies, and even the possible copy errors and various forms in which the original documents may have taken. Without any highly credible extra-biblical references (there are some somewhat credible references, but they are spurious at best), how can we know?

We might as well debate over whether or not MacBeth was a historical figure!

 

[kmortis]

There are too many variables.

Did a god-man named Jesus the Christ live exactly as it is written in the NT? - Almost certainly not.

Did a god-man ever exist? - Almost certainly not.

Did a man named Jesus exist? - Well, of course. Lots of men named Jesus lived during this time and in this region. Well, they weren't named 'Jesus', but the original Jewish of 'Yeshua'. We'll accept that for later references to 'Jesus', okay?

Did a man named Jesus exist who was the inspiration for the religion? - Maybe.

Did any man exist who was the inspiration for the religion? Very possibly. There is a lot of controversy about attributions, inconsistencies, evidence, and so forth.

The problem is that not even the so-called authors of the NT gospels are considered to be who they say they are. And the timing of the writings is far after the supposed death of this supposed Jesus. Add to that the interpolations of miraculous events, mixing of mythologies, and even the possible copy errors and various forms in which the original documents may have taken. Without any highly credible extra-biblical references (there are some somewhat credible references, but they are spurious at best), how can we know?

We might as well debate over whether or not MacBeth was a historical figure!

Dude...don't mention the "Scottish Play", ok?

 

[c4ts]

There were lots of people named "Jesus" around that time. Doesn't mean a single one of them had to do with the NT Christ.

 

[Tricky]

At least some aspects of the legend of Jesus are borrowed part and parcel from other religions, especially the birth story. It is quite likely that he is an amalgamation of several (or many) notable people of the day, borrowing the best parts from each.

Dude...don't mention the "Scottish Play", ok?

Blackadder fan, kmortis?

 

[kmortis]

At least some aspects of the legend of Jesus are borrowed part and parcel from other religions, especially the birth story. It is quite likely that he is an amalgamation of several (or many) notable people of the day, borrowing the best parts from each.

Blackadder fan, kmortis?

Why do you ask, Baldrick?

Actually, my "adversion" to MacBeth come from the fact that I worked for about 8 years in semi-pro theatre. While it's no longer a taboo name to say, the legend lives on amongst Thespians. When I saw the bit on Blackadder, it was all the funnier because of my experience.

 

[Upchurch]

So did Jesus live or what?

Sure. Couple a' times.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Why do you ask, Baldrick?

Actually, my "adversion" to MacBeth come from the fact that I worked for about 8 years in semi-pro theatre. While it's no longer a taboo name to say, the legend lives on amongst Thespians. When I saw the bit on Blackadder, it was all the funnier because of my experience.

Begging your pardon, my good sir! I will speak no more of 'he who should not be named'.

Hamlet, anyone...? (ducks and runs)

 

[Huntster]

I've seen the claim from fundies several times lately that Jesus definitely existed and that all serious historians agree on this point...

... What do actual historians think and how strong is the evidence for Jesus compared to say Ceasar or other historical figures?

Flavius Josephus:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm#Jesus

Cornelius Tacitus:

(Roman, and not Christian):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

...The most famous passage in which Tacitus mentions Christianity is as follows (Annals 15.44):

"Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed"....

Justin Martyr:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/175.html

 

[Seismosaurus]

Okay, obviously there would be a whole lot of guys called "Jesus" (or equivalent) then as now. Should have been clearer on that aspect!

I pretty much take it as a given that there wasn't a real "son of god" back then since it's pretty obvious that there isn't a god, then or now. (Yeah yeah, that's not proven, but it's pretty obvious.)

So the question really is how well proven is it that there was an actual individual who was the inspiration for the Christian religion. Most answers seem to be along the lines of "maybe"...

So the question is, how much of a maybe is that? How broad and how solid is that evidence for Jesus, as compared to other historical figures of the same era?

 

[geni]

We might as well debate over whether or not MacBeth was a historical figure!

That's easy. Yes he was. Probably rightful king of Scotland. Managed to make the place pretty stable end the end got overthrown by duncans kids backed by the northumbrians.

 

[kmortis]

We might as well debate over whether or not MacBeth was a historical figure!

That's easy. Yes he was. Probably rightful king of Scotland. Managed to make the place pretty stable end the end got overthrown by duncans kids backed by the northumbrians.

GAMNIT...you Quoted the "Scottish play"
"Angels and ministers of grace defend us"

I hope I got here in time.

 

[kuroyume0161]

That's easy. Yes he was. Probably rightful king of Scotland. Managed to make the place pretty stable end the end got overthrown by duncans kids backed by the northumbrians.

I was afraid that some smarty-pants was going to have information like this! ;0) But you get my gist (or jest).

And no more naming 'he who should not be named'!

 

[kuroyume0161]

Okay, obviously there would be a whole lot of guys called "Jesus" (or equivalent) then as now. Should have been clearer on that aspect!

I pretty much take it as a given that there wasn't a real "son of god" back then since it's pretty obvious that there isn't a god, then or now. (Yeah yeah, that's not proven, but it's pretty obvious.)

So the question really is how well proven is it that there was an actual individual who was the inspiration for the Christian religion. Most answers seem to be along the lines of "maybe"...

So the question is, how much of a maybe is that? How broad and how solid is that evidence for Jesus, as compared to other historical figures of the same era?

Despite Hunster's attempts (at humor maybe), there is no compelling evidence. Cornelius Tacitus is almost certainly a forgery or interpolation. Flavius Josephus also reeks of later interpolation. Tacitus never mentions a 'Jesus Christus', just plain ole' Christus. 'Christus' (latin) is from 'Christos' (greek) which is the interpretation of 'Messiah' (hebrew) for 'annointed one'. It is not a name, it is a title. Anyway, if it were a name, then what becomes of 'Jesus', heh?

There is not one shred of real physical evidence (plenty of 'splinters from the cross', shrouds, and other memorabilia - more like paraphenalia). So few references are available and many are either interpolations (enter Eusebius) or outright fabrications.

So, what are we left with for evidence? The NT and a few possible extrabiblical references. That's not much to go by. It is assured that any actual historical references in the gospels have been obliterated by the mythological and philosophical drapings. And this is the reason that the best answer is "Maybe".

My opinion is that it is a very small maybe for the 'founder' to have been actually named 'Yeshua' and have any resemblance to even the more historically accurate events attributed therein.

 

[geni]

Despite Hunster's attempts (at humor maybe), there is no compelling evidence. Cornelius Tacitus is almost certainly a forgery or interpolation.

Evidence?

There is not one shred of real physical evidence (plenty of 'splinters from the cross', shrouds, and other memorabilia - more like paraphenalia).

Why should there be?

So few references are available and many are either interpolations (enter Eusebius) or outright fabrications.

So what? We are talking about a figure that never moved outside a minor roman provence and for the most part stayed away from cities. Outside egypt our records from the period are really pretty minimal.

So, what are we left with for evidence? The NT and a few possible extrabiblical references. That's not much to go by. It is assured that any actual historical references in the gospels have been obliterated by the mythological and philosophical drapings. And this is the reason that the best answer is "Maybe".

The relivant part of Paul's letter appears to be pretty solid

 

[geni]

I was afraid that some smarty-pants was going to have information like this! ;0) But you get my gist (or jest).

Not really. Mac Bethad mac Findlàech was a real person there is no real question of that (apart from anything else you have a couple of battles and a gap in the scotish kingship if you remove it). He was king from 1040 untill 1054-1057 (the exact date of the end of his reighn is tricky because although he lost southern scotland in 1054 he wasn't killed for another 3 years). That said the amount of physical evidence we have of existance is aproximately zilch (I think the british museam has a total of one axe head from that period of scotish history). There are of course writen records but even then stuff from that period is pretty limited.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Evidence?

Why should there be?

So what? We are talking about a figure that never moved outside a minor roman provence and for the most part stayed away from cities. Outside egypt our records from the period are really pretty minimal.

The relivant part of Paul's letter appears to be pretty solid

Julius Gaius Caesar would have been well known just for his defeat of the Gauls even if he hadn't moved against Pompey and made himself emporer. But we have ample evidence for his existence - in statues, coins, witnesses, historical events, etc.

Not authoritative, but check here...

Well, yeah, Yeshua was a back-water hick. But he also spawned the largest religion in Europe for the past two millenia. Nothing was saved? Nothing was written? Despite the locale, there were plenty of literate Romans, Greeks, and Persians loafing about back then. Obviously much ado about nothing since no records that they may have kept (including Pontius Pilatus') exist today.

It took at least fifty years after the supposed death for 'the story' to be penned. Very suspicious.

Chinese kept copious records going back 5000 years! And the Romans and Greeks were very good at keeping records. Many were lost. Surprisingly, again, almost nothing that would provide evidence beyond a couple of unreliable sources and the NT itself.

I dismiss anything to do with Paul. You are trying to use the letters of Paul as extrabiblical? Anything after the gospels is at a time when the spreading Christianity was already established all along the Mediterranean (even if just small cultish pockets). And not even all of them could agree on whether there was a man, a spirit, a logos, or a god.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Not really. Mac Bethad mac Findlàech was a real person there is no real question of that (apart from anything else you have a couple of battles and a gap in the scotish kingship if you remove it). He was king from 1040 untill 1054-1057 (the exact date of the end of his reighn is tricky because although he lost southern scotland in 1054 he wasn't killed for another 3 years). That said the amount of physical evidence we have of existance is aproximately zilch (I think the british museam has a total of one axe head from that period of scotish history). There are of course writen records but even then stuff from that period is pretty limited.

But you missed my point, didn't you? Did this guy get future forecasts from three witches, kill the king with the help from his wife, see apparitions, and the forest move against (etc.)?

The link between the real person and the fictional character is spurious at best. Sort of like me writing a story about how George Washington, oh, chopped down a cherry tree. Real person, fictional account.

We don't even have this to work on for Jesus! There is an obvious fictional account (four of them, none completely agreeing, and almost assuredly adapted from a single source), but no real person. Show me the body (or anything)!

 

[Huntster]

Julius Gaius Caesar would have been well known just for his defeat of the Gauls even if he hadn't moved against Pompeii and made himself emporer. But we have ample evidence for his existence - in statues, coins, witnesses, historical events, etc.....

Caesars are emporers. We expect them to be on coins and well written about by historians.

Pilate is mentioned in the gospels as well as Cornelius Tacitus' writings. Do you deny, too, that he even existed?

Will you accept only those historical figures who are etched in coin?

What level of evidence will suffice?

...So, what are we left with for evidence? The NT and a few possible extrabiblical references. That's not much to go by...

It's a foundation.

How about 20% of today's human population, nearly 2,000 years later, as "disciples" of that "back-water hick"?

How many disciples follow you?