Facts Regarding Jesus

[JoeyKnothead]

From here:

...However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus...

For debate:

Please present verifiable facts regarding "the Historical Jesus" for examination.

[fredonly]

Provide some verifiable facts about Aristotle.

He is NOT the subject of this OP.

That fact is verifiable if you had actually read the OP, as there is absolutely no mention of him within the Title, or the text of the OP.

OK, pardon my subtlety. My point is there there are no verifiable facts about anyone in antiquity. The study of history is about determining what is likely to have occurred. It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist. There are various things about his life that historians think are somewhat likely to have occurred. None are verifiable - because that's the way history works.

The so-called "facts" (although probably too strong a word) about Jesus are simply the things that historians feel are likely to have occurred. E.g. itinerant preacher, faith healer, said "blessed are..." a number of things.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6 :

OK, pardon my subtlety. My point is there there are no verifiable facts about anyone in antiquity.

Yet so many Christians carry on about the "historical Jesus".

The study of history is about determining what is likely to have occurred. It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist.

But notice, the challenged statement indicates that Jesus actually existed or acted in a fashion that can be positively known.

There are various things about his life that historians thin[k] are somewhat likely to have occurred. None are verifiable - because that's the way history works.

Thinking something is not showing it to be truth.

(edit because surely you can understand 7 looks a lot like 6 )

[Question Everything]

It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist.

So why then didn't Philo write about Jesus?

Philo's writings foreshadow Christian ideas in many ways
Almost all of the works of Philo are preserved
Some of Philo's writings may have been used by the authors of the Gospels
Philo's life perfectly spans the supposed life of Jesus
Philo was a community leader and active in the social movements of his day
Philo reported on the political and religious events of his day
Philo provides the only contemporary account of Pontius Pilate in all of ancient literature
Philo personally knew several of the historical figures in the Jesus story
Philo would surely have written about someone like "Jesus Christ" if he had known of him

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

[fredonly]

From Post 6 :

OK, pardon my subtlety. My point is there there are no verifiable facts about anyone in antiquity.

Yet so many Christians carry on about the "historical Jesus".

It sounds like you have a false impression. It was religious skeptics who started the trend of trying to decipher the historical Jesus - deconstructing the story behind the theological cloud of the Bible. Liberal minded Christian scholars joined in using the same secular methodology; conservative Christian "scholars" held to their biases.

The study of history is about determining what is likely to have occurred. It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist.

But notice, the challenged statement indicates that Jesus actually existed or acted in a fashion that can be positively known.

I agree that calling them "facts" is too strong. We only have educated guesses, some more plausible than others.

There are various things about his life that historians thin[k] are somewhat likely to have occurred. None are verifiable - because that's the way history works.

Thinking something is not showing it to be truth.

Of course. However, does this mean you would reject all historical research and analysis because it can't be proven true? e.g. I read a relatively recent theory about Christopher Columbus, that he was actually Spanish and not Italian. An interesting, and (as far as I can tell) plausible theory. But no one could possibly say this is an established, proven fact. So what?

[fredonly]

It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist.

So why then didn't Philo write about Jesus?

Philo's writings foreshadow Christian ideas in many ways
Almost all of the works of Philo are preserved
Some of Philo's writings may have been used by the authors of the Gospels
Philo's life perfectly spans the supposed life of Jesus
Philo was a community leader and active in the social movements of his day
Philo reported on the political and religious events of his day
Philo provides the only contemporary account of Pontius Pilate in all of ancient literature
Philo personally knew several of the historical figures in the Jesus story
Philo would surely have written about someone like "Jesus Christ" if he had known of him

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

At best, this is a theory similar to the one about Christopher Columbus being Spanish. Probably it is less credible than that. Is this theory widely embraced by other scholars?

It seems to me you are insisting that if Jesus existed, then certainly Philo would have written about him. I'm sorry, but this is not logically valid. There are any number of reasons why Philo might not have written about Jesus. Two obvious possibilities are: 1) he hadn't heard of him (why should you be so certain that he would have?)
2) Philo saw nothing noteworthy to write about - Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers.

I also have to ask: who is R.G. Price? What are his credentials? I'm sure he's done some research, but does he have any scholarly credentials? Has he been published in peer reviewed journals? A quick skimming of his section on Philo implies he's relying on the fallacy: absence of proof implies proof of absence.

[Goat]

It seems to me you are insisting that if Jesus existed, then certainly Philo would have written about him. I'm sorry, but this is not logically valid. There are any number of reasons why Philo might not have written about Jesus. Two obvious possibilities are: 1) he hadn't heard of him (why should you be so certain that he would have?)
2) Philo saw nothing noteworthy to write about - Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers.

I would say that this demonstrates that IF Jesus existed, during his life he did not distinguish himself from others. This directly contradicts the Gospels, which made Jesus bigger than life, with multitudes of followers.

To me , this shows that if the historical Jesus did indeed exist , he probably only had a vague resemblence to the biblical Jesus.





=

[fredonly]

It seems to me you are insisting that if Jesus existed, then certainly Philo would have written about him. I'm sorry, but this is not logically valid. There are any number of reasons why Philo might not have written about Jesus. Two obvious possibilities are: 1) he hadn't heard of him (why should you be so certain that he would have?)
2) Philo saw nothing noteworthy to write about - Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers.

I would say that this demonstrates that IF Jesus existed, during his life he did not distinguish himself from others. This directly contradicts the Gospels, which made Jesus bigger than life, with multitudes of followers.

To me , this shows that if the historical Jesus did indeed exist , he probably only had a vague resemblence to the biblical Jesus.=

The Biblical Jesus is clearly clouded in myth, with Old Testament trappings overlayed on it. The historical Jesus research attempts to analyze these layers and peel them back. Historical Jesus research is distinct from theories about his existence/non-existence; this research takes his existence as a premise.

[cnorman18]

It seems to me you are insisting that if Jesus existed, then certainly Philo would have written about him. I'm sorry, but this is not logically valid. There are any number of reasons why Philo might not have written about Jesus. Two obvious possibilities are: 1) he hadn't heard of him (why should you be so certain that he would have?)
2) Philo saw nothing noteworthy to write about - Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers.

I would say that this demonstrates that IF Jesus existed, during his life he did not distinguish himself from others. This directly contradicts the Gospels, which made Jesus bigger than life, with multitudes of followers.

To me , this shows that if the historical Jesus did indeed exist , he probably only had a vague resemblence to the biblical Jesus.=

The Biblical Jesus is clearly clouded in myth, with Old Testament trappings overlayed on it. The historical Jesus research attempts to analyze these layers and peel them back. Historical Jesus research is distinct from theories about his existence/non-existence; this research takes his existence as a premise.

I would agree with that. There are several separate questions being debated at once here:

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

(2) If there was, did that real person bear any resemblance to the Jesus presented in the Gospels and Christian tradition, without regard to the supernatural aspects of that figure (i.e., was he an itinerant Jewish preacher and storyteller who was in some sort of conflict with the religious authorities of his day)?

(3) Is there ANY basis for the aforementioned supernatural aspects of that person's life (healings, miraculous food being provided to multitudes, Resurrection, etc.) -- that is, is there any evidence of such stories circulating in Jesus's day?

(4) If there is -- if there actually were stories circulating at the time that include those aspects -- to what extent are those stories credible and worthy of considering as factual?

(5) Even if those aspects are considered historically factual, to what extent are they evidence of the Christian claims about Jesus as God Incarnate, son of God, and so on? (There have been healers throughout history; none but Jesus, so far as I know, has ever been claimed to be the Deity in human form.)

On the usual scale of 5="very much" and 1="not at all," it seems to me that these questions are answered in descending order; #1 is "very much," #2 is "probably," #3 is "maybe," #4 is "probably not," and #5 is "not at all." But that's my opinion from my own reading. Let's not conflate all these questions together. That wouldn't be helpful at all.

[Question Everything]

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

A lot depends on how much that person has to resemble the Gospel stories for him to count as "the basis". For example, is it necessary for him to be from Nazareth? For him to be crucified? Born in Bethlehem?

[d.thomas]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/ From the IEP

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew also called Judaeus Philo, is a figure that spans two cultures, the Greek and the Hebrew. When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century B.C.E. it was only natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especially by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen. He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John (C. H. Dodd) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (R. Williamson and H. W. Attridge). In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo’s The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church Father.

Philo wrote about people like Jesus and was in Jerusalem about the time of the supposed Jesus' arrest, trial, and crucifixion. He wrote about Pilate, conflicts between the occupying Romans and Jews, but never mentioned this Jesus character.