Proofs of Jesus outside of the Bible.

Paschendale said:

I approach it more from the basis that people do all sorts of bad things, fueled by beliefs in these myths. Maybe the Sunnis and Shiites would be more able to make peace with one another if the religion that fuels them disappeared. Maybe Protestants and Catholics could live together in peace in Ireland if they stopped caring about the differences between their myths. Maybe the west and the middle east could stop fighting over religion and nobody would actually think that there was a spiritual reward for blowing yourself up in order to kill others.

It's not really historians that I'm concerned about. It's the population at large, and the strife that our religious divisions cause us.

Click to expand...

really has nothing to do with what I mentioned. Seems you are so totally caught up in your issues with religion that you can't even comprehend a simple point about how historical research is conducted

rather sad

rathi said:

One guy saying that his viewpoint is universally accepted among scholars is not the definition of consensus. However, that isn't the point. If a scholar wants to put forth the idea that Jesus was a historical certainty, he has to create an argument supported by evidence just like everyone else. There are no existing historical sources from anyone who alive during the lifetime of Jesus. If you think you can argue around that limitation, be my guest, but you need more than simply saying "some scholar agrees with me".

Click to expand...

A quick Google search reveals that scholars who deny the existence of a historical Jesus are in the far minority. I haven't studied much about the historical Jesus, and so therefore I will trust the overwhelming number of scholars (Christian and non-Christian alike) who conclude that a historical Jesus probably did exist.

Pinkie said:

Since there is almost no aspect of the JC story that wasn't previously mentioned in another religion's folklore, it is very unlikely that the JC story is true, and if it is not, then it is very unlikely that any such individual ever lived.

Click to expand...

Neither of those conclusions follow and you have not established the premise.

One could draw parallels between everyone's life story and the life of another real or fictional persons. For instance, the biopics about Ray Charles and Johnny Cash shared some similarities but they did both exist while only one of them was the son of God.

RGacky3 said:

Josephus is one of the most respected ancient historian, you also have writings from tacitus, and others.

Of coarse tehre is no PROOF of Jesus existing, like there is mathematical PROOF of gravity, but then again there is no PROOF that plato existed, but Jesus' existance is WAY more documented than Plato, and most anciant figures whose existence almost NO ONE disputes are much less documented.

If you're going to deny that Jesus existed based on lack of evidence you ahve to deny most historical figures and most of history.

As far as parallels between Jesus and other myths, almost no historian holds to that nowerdays, and almost all of those so called parallels have been dismissed in the modern historical field.

Click to expand...

I think there's adequate historical evidence of Plato's actual existence, even if there isn't any specific archaeological proof. After all, someone wrote the documents attributed to him, and he is mentioned in contemporaneous writings as well and subsequent ones.

I don't know what you mean by "historians dismiss parallels". The center theme of JC's life/teachings are contained the Sermon on the Mount, which has almost no original ideas. There's a terrific message in that sermon, but it's still not original.

Paschendale said:

And all of their claims of supernatural power should be subject to scrutiny. Serious geological studies have gone on, for example, to determine how and when the Red Sea could have dried up or two cities be destroyed by fire. Archaeological studies have looked for the remains of a major Hebrew population living in Egypt for several centuries. Every assertion ought to be tested to determine whether or not it is true.

Click to expand...

Feel free. I choose to regard these claims as parables; messages about the relationship between God and man, and I have zero interest in any archaeological effort to prove they really happened.

Even as a child in the RCC, I was not taught that the Old Testament miracles actually happened.

I know some people believe they did, which must be rather confusing for them, but as long as they admit they are believing based on faith and not on science, I have no quarrel with them.

Pinkie said:

I think there's adequate historical evidence of Plato's actual existence, even if there isn't any specific archaeological proof. After all, someone wrote the documents attributed to him, and he is mentioned in contemporaneous writings as well and subsequent ones.

I don't know what you mean by "historians dismiss parallels". The center theme of JC's life/teachings are contained the Sermon on the Mount, which has almost no original ideas. There's a terrific message in that sermon, but it's still not original.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure someone adopting ideas that have existed elsewhere proves that they didn't exist. Hell, likely every thought you and I have on politics is adopted from somewhere else, but that hardly proves we don't exist. As someone said, you are jumping to conclusions here

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Just because someone wrote a detailed story doesn't mean that it was true.

Any half-way decent fiction novel has good character development. That doesn't mean it's true.

Click to expand...

But Muhammed lived in the 7th century, and JC in the 1st. That period saw a tremendous flowering of culture, science and art in the Muslim world,and although it is not dispositive, it seems (somewhat) more likely that men who could accurately chart the night skies could accurately record a leader's biography.

I also believe that Joseph Smith actually existed, because by the 19th century, we had reasonably good records of births, deaths, marriages, land ownership, etc. I don't happen to believe he found gold tablets, saw an angel or any of the rest of the Book of Mormon --- but I do think he existed.

Pinkie said:

I think there's adequate historical evidence of Plato's actual existence, even if there isn't any specific archaeological proof. After all, someone wrote the documents attributed to him, and he is mentioned in contemporaneous writings as well and subsequent ones.

I don't know what you mean by "historians dismiss parallels". The center theme of JC's life/teachings are contained the Sermon on the Mount, which has almost no original ideas. There's a terrific message in that sermon, but it's still not original.

Click to expand...

The documents are much much later, and much much less, his existence is much less attested.

As for the Sermon on the mount not being origional ideas ... even if thats true, nothings origional, especially when it comes to basic moral philosophy.

What I mean is that the concept that Jesus's life was a myth copied from previous myths and thus was not a real person isn't taken seriously amung modern historians, almost all of them believe that Jesus was a real person and that the Gospels are based on him.

Dr. Chuckles said:

Well, we have numerous books that are actually credited to plato. And also a plethora of contemporaries writing about him (one I recall is a remark by Alcibiades mentioning how physically unattractive he was). I am unsure of such an extensive records existing for jesus.

Click to expand...

Yeah ... yet all the documents are much much later and there are much fewer manuscrips.

There are plenty of physical descriptions of Jesus as well by comptemporaries and we have much earlier documents.

Pinkie said:

But Muhammed lived in the 7th century, and JC in the 1st. That period saw a tremendous flowering of culture, science and art in the Muslim world,and although it is not dispositive, it seems (somewhat) more likely that men who could accurately chart the night skies could accurately record a leader's biography.

I also believe that Joseph Smith actually existed, because by the 19th century, we had reasonably good records of births, deaths, marriages, land ownership, etc. I don't happen to believe he found gold tablets, saw an angel or any of the rest of the Book of Mormon --- but I do think he existed.

Click to expand...

Definitely. I'm attacking the method of argumentation, not necessarily the argument itself. I do think it's probably more likely he really existed than it is that JC did, but the depth of character development in the Quran isn't a good argument for why.

zstep18 said:

A quick Google search reveals that scholars who deny the existence of a historical Jesus are in the far minority. I haven't studied much about the historical Jesus, and so therefore I will trust the overwhelming number of scholars (Christian and non-Christian alike) who conclude that a historical Jesus probably did exist.

Click to expand...

You are operating under a false dichotomy. Its true that few scholars would deny the existence of historical Jesus, that doesn't mean they support his existence either. The third option is that the lack of evidence prevents anyone from drawing a definitive conclusion. Its possible that we have no contemporary accounts of Jesus because he didn't exist, its also possible that he did exist but the records didn't survive the 2000 year wait. Maybe Josephus was referencing accurate sources for his quote about Jesus, maybe he was retelling a myth he heard from someone else.

Pinkie said:

Because in a thread about the First Amendment, I suggested there was no scientific, historical or archeological proof that either Muhammed or Jesus Christ ever existed.

And because it's interesting to Chelsea and I, so if you find the topic offensive or boring, please feel free not to post here, k?

Click to expand...

There is very little direct evidence for Christ's existence outside of the Gospels but this is to be expected. In secular terms Christ was little more than Jewish cult leader who was executed in a remote corner of the Roman Empire. However there is a massive amount of circumstantial evidence for his existence, and quite frankly little reason to doubt that he or some leader associated with the Nazerine cult lived. The fact that within a century of his death, sometimes as soon as 20 years after his execution, historians from Tacitus to Suetonius and later Celsus record his followers existence and speak of him as though he were a fact of history argues strongly in favor of his having lived.

I'm a very secular individual and very much irreligious, atheistic even, however that being said I think the attempts to deny Christ's historicity as a person ring hollow for me. It smacks of a secular push back to try and remove the root cause of Christianity by erasing Christ. I don't think it makes much sense, and my understanding is that most historians and most students of antiquity will acknowledge the likely reality that someone akin to Jesus leader of the Nazerine cult existed.

I think a thread on arguing whether the inventor of the wheel actually existed is in order since obviously if he or she did not, the wheel can not exist.

Sherman123 said:

There is very little direct evidence for Christ's existence outside of the Gospels but this is to be expected. In secular terms Christ was little more than Jewish cult leader who was executed in a remote corner of the Roman Empire. However there is a massive amount of circumstantial evidence for his existence, and quite frankly little reason to doubt that he or some leader associated with the Nazerine cult lived. The fact that within a century of his death, sometimes as soon as 20 years after his execution, historians from Tacitus to Suetonius and later Celsus record his followers existence and speak of him as though he were a fact of history argues strongly in favor of his having lived.

I'm a very secular individual and very much irreligious, atheistic even, however that being said I think the attempts to deny Christ's historicity as a person ring hollow for me. It smacks of a secular push back to try and remove the root cause of Christianity by erasing Christ. I don't think it makes much sense, and my understanding is that most historians and most students of antiquity will acknowledge the likely reality that someone akin to Jesus leader of the Nazerine cult existed.

Click to expand...

Whatever the motives might be for a historian, scientist or archaeologist to examine the question and draw whatever conclusion they do is immaterial. If their data and reasoning are sound, their conclusions are reliable, or at least of interest.

I don't find the spread of christianity to be any evidence at all that JC actually existed. It was a political movement as much as a religious one, helping to sundown the Roman Empire and creating a coalition to resist the Ottoman Empire. Given that that's true, the proponents of christianity had to reject Paganism and christianity allowed them to promote the idea of monotheism without featuring Judaism as the centerpiece.

Pinkie said:

I don't find the spread of christianity to be any evidence at all that JC actually existed. It was a political movement as much as a religious one, helping to sundown the Roman Empire and creating a coalition to resist the Ottoman Empire. Given that that's true, the proponents of christianity had to reject Paganism and christianity allowed them to promote the idea of monotheism without featuring Judaism as the centerpiece.

Click to expand...

The argument by the spread of christianity refers to the spread during the 1rst century ... way way before the Ottoman empire, and way way before the sundown of the Roman empire or even before the Roman Empire even started showing signs of slowing down.

Pinkie said:

Whatever the motives might be for a historian, scientist or archaeologist to examine the question and draw whatever conclusion they do is immaterial. If their data and reasoning are sound, their conclusions are reliable, or at least of interest.

I don't find the spread of christianity to be any evidence at all that JC actually existed. It was a political movement as much as a religious one, helping to sundown the Roman Empire and creating a coalition to resist the Ottoman Empire. Given that that's true, the proponents of christianity had to reject Paganism and christianity allowed them to promote the idea of monotheism without featuring Judaism as the centerpiece.

Click to expand...

And of course you can back all this up?

American said:

And of course you can back all this up?

Click to expand...

Do I need to? You're a well-educated man, American.

RGacky3 said:

The argument by the spread of christianity refers to the spread during the 1rst century ... way way before the Ottoman empire, and way way before the sundown of the Roman empire or even before the Roman Empire even started showing signs of slowing down.

Click to expand...

Christianity struggles for prominence, nevermind domination, until the Nicean Council in about 300 AD, when Constantine declares it to be the religion of his empire.

Agreed?

That happens in the third century, and is usually considered a significant event/factor in the decline of the Roman Empire.

Agreed?

Anyway: none of this has any bearing on whether christianity should be any living person's faith. That's a topic I have no opinion about, except as to my own spirituality -- and I am not a christian, in case anyone needs to know this.

This thread deals only with whether there is real proof that JC actually existed, and if so, what that proof might be. If the inquiry is upsetting to any reader, I'd respectfully suggest that person stop reading.

That happens in the third century, and is usually considered a significant event/factor in the decline of the Roman Empire.

Click to expand...

Rome was already in decline, in fact it has been debated that converting the empire to Christianity was a move to hold it together.

spanky said:

Rome was already in decline, in fact it has been debated that converting the empire to Christianity was a move to hold it together.

Click to expand...

An interesting POV, but still: christianity was spread partially, probably predominately, as a political device. This was true in the earliest days of the religion and continued throughout its existence and is still true today.

Agreed?

Pinkie said:

Christianity struggles for prominence, nevermind domination, until the Nicean Council in about 300 AD, when Constantine declares it to be the religion of his empire.

Agreed?

That happens in the third century, and is usually considered a significant event/factor in the decline of the Roman Empire.

Agreed?

Anyway: none of this has any bearing on whether christianity should be any living person's faith. That's a topic I have no opinion about, except as to my own spirituality -- and I am not a christian, in case anyone needs to know this.

This thread deals only with whether there is real proof that JC actually existed, and if so, what that proof might be. If the inquiry is upsetting to any reader, I'd respectfully suggest that person stop reading.

Click to expand...

Not exactly for the first at least century and a half, Christianity was a rebel religion, it was spreading but not lookhng for prominance, which is why early christians refused military service and rejected Roman Politics.

The argument is that Christianity spreading that fast immediately after Jesus' death makes it highly unlikely that he was not a real person.

Pinkie said:

An interesting POV, but still: christianity was spread partially, probably predominately, as a political device. This was true in the earliest days of the religion and continued throughout its existence and is still true today.

Agreed?

Click to expand...

Religion has always been used as a means to authority, power and control. As far as the beginnings of Christianity, I don't think so, not at first and not until it had become prevalent enough for those who were in power saw they could exploit it. IMO monotheism was an idea whose time had come and while the Jews were not an evangelical religion, Christianity was so it was in the right place at the right time. It died in Hebrew Judea but that maybe had more to do with competing messiahs and the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans in 79. It was Saul who was the architect of taking Christianity to the Goy but I don't see a political motive on his part.

I doubt that it was political, given that saul lost his position of power in the Jewish leadership, and became basically a quasi outlaw in the Roman Empire.

I looked into the debate over the historicity of Jesus a few years back so any information I have now is based mostly on the information available then. I'm not sure if anything has really changed or if any significant and new information is available.

A few things to keep in mind when examining this topic matter:

1. First and foremost I think it's important to note the status of Jesus during that time period in the Levant and outlining areas. He was more or less a nobody outside of his small group of people, he became posthumously famous.

2. Written language was not the same then as it is today, people didn't carry around a pen and paper (so to speak) and write things down that they found noteworthy. Oral tradition was the main way that important information was retained and then passed on to succeeding generations.

3. History is not scrutinized in the same way that science is with the scientific method, they're in different fields of study and in the social sciences different methods are used including a process to analyze the accuracy of oral tradition.



One of the main sources cited when it comes to the historicity of Jesus (outside of the bible itself) is Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews). This source has been heavily scrutinized and for a good reason, a significant portion of the writing that goes into detail on Jesus is now accepted by many as an insertion made later on by Christian scribes.

They wrote:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

Click to expand...

I think it's important to note that the placement of the above paragraph is semi-significant. It makes it much more likely that they (christian scribes) were simply embellishing on what was already written by Josephus since ordering in their culture was important and they would have likely placed that paragraph somewhere after John the Baptist (it's the logical succession of the story). There's also a brief mentioning of Jesus in a later chapter that's much less descriptive which is not considered a later addition.

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:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm

Click to expand...

Also important to note is the authenticity of the first paragraph is still debated by scholars over whether or not it was completely written by christian scribes, if just part of it was, or if none of it was. They say that the writing style was identical to Josephus and that it is included in all manuscripts however the description of Christ given is not what you would see being used by someone who was Jewish.



Next we have Tacitus who mentions Christus (Annals 15(44):

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.

Tacitus: Annals: Book 15 [40]

Click to expand...

For those of you who are not familiar with Tacitus he was a Roman historian in the middle of the 1st century, some scholars question the authenticity of this passage but not too many do given it's tone and the way this Christus character and his followers were portrayed.


There's more mention of Jesus in writings outside of the bible, I just put down the two most noteworthy sources for you all to check out. Personally I think evidence for the existence of Jesus (the one in the bible), fits in with textual and oral historical methodologies. He is written about by multiple sources and the amount he is written about is consistent with the fact that he was not a major figure of the time, his life may have been worthy of jotting down by a few historical figures but outside of his group of followers he was a fairly insignificant person from a historical perspective. There is no first hand account of his life outside of the bible but there is writings from historical figures that sort of mention him as a sideline figure. The more significant historical data comes from oral tradition.


In conclusion I think you can make a case for both sides but the historical Jesus is documented much more heavily than a lot of other "accepted" historical figures which makes me wonder why so many people are trying so enthusiastically to disprove his existence.


List of people to look into if anyone is interested (some are more heavily scrutinized then others so I suggest getting both sides of the story when examining each possible source):

Tacitus (54-119AD)
Suetonius (75-160AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-115Ad)
Philo (?- 40+AD)
Josephus (37-94AD contemporary of the apostles)

Then of course you have the writings of the bible as a source and the apocrypha.

The best proof of Jesus outside of the Bible is that there would be no logical reason for Christianity to exist had there not been solid historical proof . and certainly not in the first and second cent.

I thought there were Roman letters saying that there was a Jesus. Or maybe it was about rumors of Christianity during the time.