Did Jesus Exist?

Watcher

Watcher

New Member
I would like this thread to stay on topic and I politely ask that the moderators remove any attempt at hijacking or sabatoging the thread for any other purpose than to debate this specific subject.

The relevant scholary consensus among historians is that Jesus did in fact exist. Please give a detailed explanation as to who you say Jesus is and why you subscribe to that particular point of view.
 
It is highly unlikely that Jesus did not exist, but I do not believe that he was the son of god. As for why, for one, I don't believe that there is a god, so, yeah.
 
Before I even attempt a reply, I think you need to detail who the "relevant scholarly consensus" is among historians.

Are these Christian historians? Secular historians? A mix of both? How did you arrive at this consensus?
 
I'm interested. Could you please give me some of the facts they use as proof? I haven't seen anyone mention any so far. I would like to know what evidence is in favour?

EDIT: Was your question aimed at everyone or theists or non-theists?
 
Come on guys, please keep this on track. This could be an interesting thread and I will hold on posting until some of the questions were answered. I think they were pretty valid as a point of reference.

EDIT AGAIN (sorry rough night)
I know I am not a Mod, just hoping to keep things on track and not get personal
 
My beliefs of Jesus are taken from the Holy Bible and teachings from men who are scholars, teachers, and firm believers that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.
He is the Saviour of all who accept Him and believe.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:17
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 20:31
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. I Corinthians 12:3
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. I John 2:22

It has been said that there are types and foreshadowing of Christ on every page of the Bible. I am not expert on this, but this is a good source and a study that I find fascinating. In addition, it is a challenge to see how Christ was pictured, in addition to the face value of a story retold, in God's Word.
http://bibletools.org/index.c....586
One of my favorite verses is And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. Genesis 22:8 Imagine the thoughts Abraham must be thinking. He was supposed to be the father of many nations, and now this! God did provide Himself a Lamb...He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isaiah 53:7
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29
He is a picture of Boaz, the kinsman redeemer who took Ruth, a Gentile for his bride.
He was the fourth person in the fiery furnace: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Daniel 3:25
He was the angel sent in the lions den: My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innnocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. Daniel 6:22

Another place to aid in your studies of who Jesus is, and considering that He is the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are interchangeable, is the appendix of Experiencing God. It contains the names, titles, and descriptions of God. I will list a few to hopefully whet your appetite:
Abounding in goodness and truth Exodus 34:6
The Almighty Job 5:17
My Beloved Matthew 12:18
The Bridegroom Matthew 9:15
Chief Cornerstone I Peter 2:6
Christ the Chosen of God Luke 23:35
Christ Jesus my Lord Philippines 3:8
Door of the Sheep John 10:7
Father to the Fatherless Psalm 68:5
Our Father Isaiah 64:8
Indescribable Gift II Corinthians 9:15
Our God and Savior Jesus Christ II Peter 1:1
God of all grace I Peter 5:10
He who calls for the waters of the sea Amos 5:8
A Lamb Revelation 5:6
The Lamb Revelation 5:8
My Lamp II Samuel 22:29
Jesus Matthew 1:21
Jesus our LORD Romans 1:3

I can personally say that the LORD has been much to me. I think we can talk about Jesus and Who He is literally for eternity and not exhaust the limitless possibilities of His essence. He has been my Saviour, Comforter, Great Physician, My Helper, My Provider, My Friend, My Lover, My Confidant, I truly could go on and on.

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and have faith in the guidance there from the God of the Word. Other than that, it is a feeling, you know? That feeling described as faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Thank you for a great topic! You wanted detail:)
Jesus asked the disciples in Mark 8:27 Whom do men say that I am?
Then went on to say in verse 29 But whom say ye that I am?
 
From 1st century pagan historians and Jewish scholars to present day historians, secular and non, the list of names is not relevant at this time. I am certain we will discuss these historians and scholars as the thread moves on. However, I don't see why the list of names is needed for you to posit your theory on who Jesus is and why. Thank you for your participation.
 
Hmm

History isn't my strong subject. I have to say that the Bible's version of Christ was quite eloquent. Assuming it was accurate, I would say he was a good man. There is no reason why he shouldn't be recognised, assuming he was truly alive at the time.

However, I have mentioned elsewhere that there has not been any record thus far about Jesus' existence. Noted historians at the time mentioned not one jot about his existence. Also, no record of his execution has been found.

Please tell me what evidence the historians use, as they would be of tremendous help.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Oct. 16 2004,7:39)]From 1st century pagan historians and Jewish scholars to present day historians, secular and non, the list of names is not relevant at this time. I am certain we will discuss these historians and scholars as the thread moves on. However, I don't see why the list of names is needed for you to posit your theory on who Jesus is and why. Thank you for your participation.
Click to expand...
Actually it is of the utmost importance. In your opening post you have made a statement which I believe is erroneous suggesting that the MAJORITY of historians believe in, and have evidence of, Jesus Christ as the son of God.

I am merely asking for proof of this statement.

For instance, I would like to know why you feel that early historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus and Pliny the Younger can be used to verify the existence and divinity of a historical Jesus.

EDIT: To save some time I'll go over these historians.
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian that produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. An apparent reference to Jesus comes from the latter, which is referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Click to expand...
Historians believe that this passage, in its present form, was NOT written by Josephus, but was inserted by later Christians.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]1) The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
2) The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.
Click to expand...
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. Some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus.

References:
Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.
Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988.
France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986.


Tacitus, in his Annals, writes that Christians,
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)
Click to expand...
There are two problems with this quote. One: Tacitus refers to Pilate by the wrong title of Procurator when Pilate was a Prefect. Two: Tacitus refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would have referred to him by his name, not religious title. It is conceivable then to believe that Tacitus is merely repeating what contemporary Christians said about Jesus, not that he has any first-hand knowledge of Jesus's historicity.

Suetonius, in The Lives of the Caesars, states:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)
Click to expand...
Problems with this interpretation are as follows 1) "Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ. 2) The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus 3) Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century.
Thus, Suetonius can not be used to confirm the historicity of Jesus.

Thallus was a pagan writer whose lost work is referred to by Julius Africanus. Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text is in fact lost, and we can confirm neither the contents of the text or its date. It is possible that Thallus was merely repeating what was told to him by Christians, or that the passage which Africanus cites is a later interpolation. Outside of the New Testament, no other references to earthquakes or unusual darkness occur in the contemporary literature.


Pliny the Younger, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor. Thus, they can not be used to confirm Jesus existence.

I have tackled these few historians because they are often referred to and used to support a historical Jesus, which, as one can see, they do not.
 
I'll refute those standard atheist responses a bit later. For now, I'll just present some contemporary quotes for examination and I welcome your feedback on each of these. I'd also appreciate the answer to my initial question which was, "Who do you say Jesus is?" I can only surmise you do not believe He existed judging by your original post. I'd like you to clarify your position for me.

Howard Marshall
In his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, Howard Marshall points out that in the early to mid 20th century, one of the few "authorities" to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopaedia. He then goes on to discuss the work of GA Wells which was then recently published.

There is said to be a Russian encyclopaedia in current use which affirms in a brief entry that Jesus Christ was the mythological founder of Christianity, but it is virtually alone in doing so. The historian will not take its statement very seriously, since ... it offers no evidence for its assertion, and mere assertion cannot stand over against historical enquiry.  But more than mere assertion is involved, for an attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by GA Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better.

Professor Marshall was correct that neither any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic.  And even GA Wells himself has now conceded that a real figure called Jesus lay behind some of the teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels.

Michael Grant
In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, 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. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous 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.

Will Durant
Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea in Caesar and Christ (the third volume of his Story of Civilisation), the

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

Rudolf Bultmann
Even the famously liberal Professor Bultmann, who argued against the historicity of much of the gospels, questions the reasonableness of Jesus Mythers themselves in Jesus and the Word.

Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.

Robert Van Voorst
It is also obvious that the diverse and all but completely unanimous opinion of modern Jesus scholars and relevant historians remain completely unconvinced by the Jesus Myth arguments.  Robert Van Voosrt writes in Jesus Outside the New Testament:

Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question.

Graham Stanton
Professor Stanton occupies the chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University and led the attack on Carston Theide's re-dating of the Jesus Papyrus.  He considers the Jesus Myth crowd even more extreme as he writes in The Gospels and Jesus.

Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
Given the broad consensus against the Jesus Myth, it has been left to a few non-professional commentators, such as Earl Doherty and GA Wells to question Jesus' existence. Despite their vigorous efforts, they have failed, and continue to fail, to even give their position respectability in the broader academic community.

Richard Carrier
It remains for each reader to determine what weight to give such a broad consensus of experts from such diverse perspectives. However, amateurs to the field of history generally and New Testament history in particular should consider the comments of Richard Carrier, co-founder of the Secular Web, made on their discussion board:

Amateurs often disregard the crucial importance of field-familiarity, i.e. that one must have a long and deep acquaintance with a particular time and culture in order to make reliable judgments about the probable and improbable, the expected and unexpected, and all the other background assumptions necessary to understanding the significance of any particular fact or claim--in short, one must be cognizant not merely of the literary context of a statement, but its entire socio-historical context as well. And that is no easy thing to achieve.
 
I believe that there is a possibility that there existed a man named Jesus. That he was a teacher that instructed those around him. However, I do not believe this historic person is the same person found in the Gospels. I do not believe that he was divine in any way.

I believe there may have been a real person at the core of all this, but through time and the editing of unscrupulous followers, the final product that we see today has been blown out of proportion.
 
hmmmm... DV, do you mind uh writing like a synopsis of what you just said? i do not really take the time to read your 1 full screen articles lol
wink.gif
 
See, here's your problem Byblos, you don't LISTEN.

If you're going to say something like that, back it up with FACTS. This is a thread about HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. If you can't, then don't bring it to the table.

Remember your "fact" about only 3% of the world not believing in God? It was wrong wasn't it? Do a little bit of research, then come back with some facts.

IS Jesus the most known name in the world?

What is your evidence to support that?

What implications does that have?

What does that mean?

Try some analytical and creative thinking. If you don't want to, that's fine, just keep it out of this thread.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I believe that there is a possibility that there existed a man named Jesus.  That he was a teacher that instructed those around him.  However, I do not believe this historic person is the same person found in the Gospels.  I do not believe that he was divine in any way.

I believe there may have been a real person at the core of all this, but through time and the editing of unscrupulous followers, the final product that we see today has been blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...

-----

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]History isn't my strong subject. I have to say that the Bible's version of Christ was quite eloquent. Assuming it was accurate, I would say he was a good man. There is no reason why he shouldn't be recognised, assuming he was truly alive at the time.
Click to expand...

-----

Fantastic, thanks for your input. Now we can clearly agree that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that “Jesus Mythers” are beyond reason and the statement should not be taken seriously since it offers no evidence for its assertion.

Now even though it is clear that Jesus did exist and the consensus among most historians testify to this fact, I think it is important to further refute the notion of a Jesus-myth and why it is clearly wrong to assert the theory.

I’d like to remind you all, that Jesus-myth arguments have their source from four supporters: turn of the century writer Arthur Drews, the myth-thesis’ most avid supporter GA Wells (who has published five books on the subject), Earl Doherty, and Acharya S. Now, each writer has a slightly different approach, but all agree that a person named Jesus didn’t exist. Wells, however, has recently back peddled and taken the view that Jesus ‘may have existed,’ but may as well not have.

Some of the skeptics out there will undoubtedly argue if Jesus existed and was so renowned, there should have been many more historical sources other than what is contained in the NT and from the Church Fathers. They will go on to posit that because so little was written about Him, this must indicate that he was the creation of the church.

On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do concerning Jesus from secular sources is nothing short of amazing. John Meier and Murray Harris have given several reasons why Jesus remained a marginal Jew about whom we have so little information.

1. The historians of the day would have considered Jesus as a small blip on the radar screen. Jesus was not considered historically significant by historians of His time. He didn’t address the Roman Senate, or write Greek philosophical treatises; He never traveled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a celebrity that he became known. Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented Christian origins.
2. Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus.
3. Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4. Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5. Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples
6. Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

A final point to be made is that we have very little information from the first century sources at all. There is not much at all that has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 through the present.

Blaiklock has cataloged the secular writings of the Roman Empire (other than Philo’s) which have surviced the first century and do not mention Jesus. They are:

1. An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
2. An inscription that mentions Pilate.
3. Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
4. From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.

Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.

From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.

From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany.

The reality is, what we know about most ancient people as individuals can fit on just a few sheets of paper. It is misguided to complain that we know next to nothing about the historical Jesus, and that we have next to nothing recorded about him by ancient pagan historians. As compared to most ancient historical figures, we know a whole lot about Jesus, and we have quite a lot recorded about Him. We’ll move into discussing the sources and refuting the common atheistic arguments a bit later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top