Who was Jesus?

a reply to: deadeyedick

It wasn't rhetorical or malicious, I just don't see how Jesus was the most documented figure in history. In my mind documenting means studying a person while alive then writing the results down on paper during the life of said person, much like with Caesar. There are no contemporary sources during the time of Jesus that documented his life other than what is in the bible and other Gnostic writings, and even those came after his death through oral tradition.

Yes, he is the most written about figure in history but he is not the most documented figure in history. Josephus is the only contemporary source on Jesus, and even that wasn't written until 60 years after his death and one of the two mentions of Jesus from Josephus is agreed to be an interpolation.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Hi 3NL1GHT3N3D1,

Just to set the record straight, Josephus wasn't born til 37AD, after the supposed death of Jesus. Plutarch, Pliny the Naturalist and Philo were contemporaries of Jesus, but never wrote a word about him or his fabulous exploits.

a reply to: guidetube

Which Jesus' do you know or would like to be right?

One that is in Heaven.
The actual teachings of Jesus that are important is that he is "the one", and you can look at ancient Jewish Gnosticism to figure out "the one . . what".
It would be the original Man who the regular earthly humans were modeled after.
He somehow became like we are, rather than the pure idealized hypothetical man.
That he made it through that life that he found himself in without falling repudiates the sinful lives the rest of us naturally find ourselves in and leaves us with no excuse.
It condemns the sin rather than the humans because at the same time this "right" life he lived lifts the status of humans in general while also giving us something to strive for.
The being in Heaven part places him in a position to do something towards us achieving this goal of righteousness, by sending God's spirit, in the same sort of way as he had God's spirit in him in that earlier earthly life.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Murgatroid

How is Jesus the most documented figure in history? The only historian who wrote about him while alive was Josephus who worked for the ones who killed Jesus and one of the mentions Josephus made of him was mostly interpolation.

There are thousands of people who were more well documented than Jesus, to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. No one questions whether Caesar was real because his life was documented while he was alive, Jesus is questioned because all information about him came after he died.

There were a lot of historians who wrote about Him while He was alive and soon after His death. This video is 1 of 4, and he does a good job.

^ In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[13] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".[14] Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[15] James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".[16] Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[17] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[18]

Source - Wikipedia

a reply to: windword

Yeah, I realized I made a mistake there and addressed it on page two.

It's odd that someone as influential as Jesus wasn't written about at all around the time of his mission. The authorities were obviously aware of him so why isn't anything written about him? Like I said, the mention of Jesus being the Messiah by Josephus is universally regarded as interpolation. It makes you wonder why someone would interpolate that information into a historians work.

He was a man whom no one understood but his woman.
Or was that Shaft?.

a reply to: OptimusSubprime

Where are they then? If people wrote about him while alive then where are the papers? The earliest known contemporary source for the existence of Jesus is from Josephus and he didn't write it until 90+ CE and even they are doubted as being totally authentic.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Historians believe it was probably Eusebius who piously forged the Josephus accounts. He was getting his butt kicked in debates with pagan, non-Christian philosophers who were, at the time, claiming that they didn't even believe "Christ" ever existed, let alone was born of a virgin, rose from the dead and died for sin.

There were several Gnostic groups that claimed that "Christ" never incarnated as human, but was a spiritual emanation, an Aeon, of God. Many of Paul's writings, some claim, also suggest a figure of a more Gnostic, spiritual nature, rather than a physical, flesh and bones man/god.

At the same time, Origin's works were coming under fire for heresy, which was breaking St Jerome's heart, as he was an avid follower of and adored Origin's works. He boasted of owning thousands of copies of his writings and admitted in letters to altering some of Origin's words to save them being burned as heretical.

The historicity of Jesus isn't widely challenged anymore. The scholarly consensus, among both Christian and non-Christian scholars is that he did in fact exist.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[9][58] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[9]

Regarding Josephus:

The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[36][37] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars

If you want to know why the majority of scholars believe that Jesus did in fact exist, I suggest you start with the article in Wikipedia. If you're serious about learning the truth of the matter for yourself, you can branch off from there.


Source - Another Wikipedia Article

might be the last person we ever meet.

a reply to: imwilliam

Why would Christian scholars need to interpolate anything about Jesus into a historians work? That doesn't seem odd to you? If there was no doubt in their minds he existed then there would be no need for them to commit forgery.

a reply to: imwilliam

There is no historical evidence to back up the birth of one "King of the Jews" born of a virgin. No historical evidence of the "Star of Bethlehem", the "Slaughter of the Innocence", or a census that would have taken the "holy" family out of Nazareth to Bethlehem.

There is no historical evidence of his supposed miracles, his trial, his crucifixion or resurrection. Therefore, there is no historical evidence that person called Jesus Christ, who these things are attributed to, ever existed at all.

It's my belief that Jesus Christ is a composite character, made up of many real and mythic people too, invented to memorialize the Judaic movement and it's last days, after the Jewish Wars.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1



I've given you a very accessible source that you can branch out from if you want to learn why most real academics/scholars, both Christian & Non-Christian, believe that Jesus existed.

There are also extensive amounts of material written about the Testimonium Flavianum, which you'll find include both nefarious and innocuous motives for why someone might have altered it . . . as well debates about whether it was altered or not. You can Google Testimonium Flavianum and I think you'll find all that you could need to make up your own mind.

a reply to: windword

There is no historical evidence to back up the birth of one "King of the Jews" born of a virgin. No historical evidence of the "Star of Bethlehem", the "Slaughter of the Innocence", or a census that would have taken the "holy" family out of Nazareth to Bethlehem.

There is no historical evidence of his supposed miracles, his trial, his crucifixion or resurrection. Therefore, there is no historical evidence that person called Jesus Christ, who these things are attributed to, ever existed at all.

Of course there's evidence. You just choose to discount/dismiss a large portion of it because it was written by Christians. It's absolutely incorrect to say there isn't any evidence, if you find that evidence unconvincing, then that is another matter.

It's my belief that Jesus Christ is a composite character, made up of many real and mythic people too, invented to memorialize the Judaic movement and it's last days, after the Jewish Wars.

That's your belief, however as I've pointed out, the vast majority of historians in this day and age disagree with you. If you want to learn how professional historians/scholars go about evaluating the evidence you can start with the sources I provided. It will at least give you some terms to start with.

a reply to: imwilliam

Of course there's evidence. You just choose to discount/dismiss a large portion of it because it was written by Christians. It's absolutely incorrect to say there isn't any evidence, if you find that evidence unconvincing, then that is another matter.

Ah! Forgive me. I should have said no historical evidence outside of the Bible

That's your belief, however as I've pointed out, the vast majority of historians in this day and age disagree with you. If you want to learn how professional historians/scholars go about evaluating the evidence you can start with the sources I provided. It will at least give you some terms to start with.

There are plenty of qualified scholars, more and more all the time, who are using critical thinking, archaeology and historical research methods that come up empty handed. Your "no true Scotsman" argument is a strawman. There is no credible evidence for the existence of one "Jesus Christ" outside of the Bible.

I've looked at the so called scholarly evidence, and it's all either second hand retold mythology, pious forgeries, mistranslations, interpolations, and a lot of intellectual dishonesty or just wishful thinking.

"Jesus Christ" is a figure for whom there is no historical evidence, outside of the Bible.

a reply to: imwilliam

You're dodging the issue here, why would Christian scholars need to interpolate details that fit with Christian dogma into a historians work if there was no doubt that Jesus existed? If they interpolated on a historians work to support their claim to Jesus then what makes you think the bible is entirely authentic? It was written by Christian scholars as well.

The only reason they would feel the need to interpolate something into someone else's work is if they did not feel confident that their story could be believed. There can be no other reason.

a reply to: windword

Ah! Forgive me. I should have said no historical evidence outside of the Bible

Wrong.
Josephus and Tacitus being two of the earliest non Biblical sources.

There are plenty of qualified scholars, more and more all the time, who are using critical thinking, archaeology and historical research methods that come up empty handed.

I provided a source that states that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non existence as effectively refuted". Unless you have a source that refutes that source, or a reliable source that says that the trend you've spoken of exists . . . you're just wasting my time as well as yours.

Your "no true Scotsman" argument is a strawman.

I see your grasp of logical fallacies is as tenuous & shallow as your grasp of history and historical methods.

"Jesus Christ" is a figure for whom there is no historical evidence, outside of the Bible.

Already refuted, not to mention the fact that you haven't established why someone should discount/dismiss the Biblical narratives and if so to what degree.

. . . a lot of intellectual dishonesty or just wishful thinking.

I'll grant that you do seem to be an expert on those things.

Look, I don't get the sense that you're approaching this as a historical problem, but rather that you're harboring a great deal of hostility towards Jesus and that's coloring your interpretation of the evidence and the facts. To put it in colloquial terms, you're ranting and raving and it's probably better just to let you burn yourself out.

I'll leave you with this thought:

Leading historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee".[49] According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view" and wrote

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.[50]

According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", adding that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[51] Michael Grant wrote in 1977 that

In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary

Source

Have a nice night

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The only reason they would feel the need to interpolate something into someone else's work is if they did not feel confident that their story could be believed. There can be no other reason.

Wrong, that may be the only reason you would, but it's not the only reason someone else would and certainly not the only reason an ancient scribe might. And again, it would only require one copyist to initiate the variant, not the totality of them. So even if one took your premise as a true, it wouldn't necessarily point to anything more than one scribe who "didn't feel confident".

You're dodging the issue here

No I'm not, I'm just tired of pseudo intellectuals with so much hostility towards Christians and Jesus pretending like they're really interested in having an intelligent and honest conversation. If you can't be bothered to examine the sources I gave you, I can't be bothered to discuss the matter further.

I'm certainly not going to spend my time swatting unsubstantiated opinions and the like.

a reply to: imwilliam

I provided a source that states that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non existence as effectively refuted". Unless you have a source that refutes that source, or a reliable source that says that the trend you've spoken of exists . . . you're just wasting my time as well as yours.

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"???? That's a load of baloney and it's intellectually dishonest! Your source is bias.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. [Source]
What is known for certain:
Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

NO!

We know for a fact that John the Baptist existed. We know that because there is contemporary secular documentation that confirms his existence. We know that baptism was being practiced before anyone named Jesus appeared on the scene. We DON'T KNOW that John the Baptist actually baptized anyone called Jesus "Christ".

We know for a fact that Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate existed because we have contemporary secular documentation of his existence. We DON'T HAVE documentation to the trial and crucifixion of one Jesus "Christ" King of the Jews.

This is known as historic fiction, much like "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer". To claim otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

Josephus and Tacitus being two of the earliest non Biblical sources.

Wrong! Both have been debunked, time and time again. Josephus' testimony MUST be thrown out as pious forgery. Liars' testimonies can't be trusted. Tacitus refers to Chrestus, not Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ. If you care to look into the history of the word/title Chrestus, you'd see how silly it is to assert that Jesus the Nazarene/of Nazereth and Chrestus were one in the same.

In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary

Indeed, they have not succeeded in disposing of superstition!

Your source is bias, and you and your sources keep moving the goal post. There are today, and there always have been those who dispute the historical Jesus Christ. Ever since the church had to stop murdering their opponents, more and more people are expressing and publishing their peer reviewed archaeological and anthropological studies exposing biblical stories as being myths.

The Bible is full of contradictory statements and stories that a rational person can't suppose were meant to be taken literally. Things like the dead rising and walking about, an impossible eclipse and an unrecorded set earthquakes.....

There is nothing in the Jesus story that can be historically proven to have happened, outside of the Bible.