The Historical Validity of Jesus

[RobertJ64]

I searched all the topics and did not find any that dealt directly with this issue.
It is generally agreed that there are no sources from within the time of Jesus that corroberates any of the details in the Gospels. Two historians that were writing at that time Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberias make no mention of Jesus at all.
I would be interested in discussing the issues with apologetics and atheists alike.
Can Jesus in fact be proven to have existed in our history?

[McCulloch]

Check out Jesus Christ is historical person.

[Jagella]

I would be interested in discussing the issues with apologetics and atheists alike.
Can Jesus in fact be proven to have existed in our history?

Hi Robert:

I don’t buy the “historical Jesus” at all. Historians generally agree that there was a historical Jesus, but this person was not the Jesus of the gospels. Oddly, scholars often point out that the only substantial evidence we have for Jesus is the four gospels, and they say that these books are religious writings and not historical chronicles. How can we then have historical evidence for Jesus if all we have is religious propaganda? Outside of the New Testament we have some non-Chritian individuals who spoke of Jesus, but these writings are not independent and were based on what Christians were known to believe. More to the point, we have nothing from the time when Jesus was said to have lived! If we also note the very fanciful tales about Jesus both in the New Testament canon and in other books written by early Christians, we then have a very tough time concluding that Jesus existed or lived beyond the fertile imaginations of the early Christians. The Greeks invented Zeus, and the Egyptians invented Osiris—why then, cannot we see that Jesus was an invention as well?

Jagella

[juliod]

Historians generally agree that there was a historical Jesus, but this person was not the Jesus of the gospels.

Of course, a "historical Jesus" would be the all-powerful ruler of the universe. How he could come to earth and not be noticed except by a tiny cult following is not immediately clear.

So the usual apologist claim that there is historical record of a man named Jesus is sufficient by itself to falsify christianity.

DanZ

[Easyrider]

Historians generally agree that there was a historical Jesus, but this person was not the Jesus of the gospels.

Of course, a "historical Jesus" would be the all-powerful ruler of the universe. How he could come to earth and not be noticed except by a tiny cult following is not immediately clear.

So the usual apologist claim that there is historical record of a man named Jesus is sufficient by itself to falsify christianity.

DanZ

Somehow I don't follow that logic. I recommend more study on that. Here's two to start with:

Evidence for the Historical Jesus

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/hist ... stjesu.htm

Archaeological Evidence for Jesus

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

[juliod]

Somehow I don't follow that logic. I recommend more study on that. Here's two to start with:

Which of those links provides evidence about the all-powerful ruler of the universe? What is that evidence?

DanZ

[Lotan]

So the usual apologist claim that there is historical record of a man named Jesus is sufficient by itself to falsify christianity.

Hi Dan,

I've been on the fence lately as to whether or not there actually was a man named Jesus at the center of the Christian story. Most of the supposed 'events' of Jesus' life are derived from the OT, but there are a few things that I have yet to see explained.
One is Jesus' subordination to John the Baptist, which the gospels gloss over, suggesting a real situation.
Another is Jesus' origin in Nazareth, and his career in Galilee. I've read good explanations for Nazareth, but on the whole this aspect of the gospels seems to reflect something original, to me.
Another is Jesus' monkey business at the Temple, leading to his subsequent arrest and execution. This is generally accepted by historical Jesus types (yes, I know they're mostly Christians) as a genuine tradition, despite the Christian spin that has been added to the story.
Also, the supporting characters in Jesus' story; James, Peter, Mary, and Mary Magdalene seem at least to be real people and not aechtypical play characters.
And finally, the epistles of Paul, who never knew Jesus, but provides a link to those mentioned previously who actually did.

In a nutshell, these broad points are the basis on which I would argue for an actual historical character at the center of the Christian myth, rather than a wholly invented character.

PS. I don't know why Fundamentalists are always complaining about the Jesus Seminar. According to one of Easyrider's links they judge 18% of Jesus' sayings from the NT to be genuine. I think that's quite generous.

[juliod]

One is Jesus' subordination to John the Baptist, which the gospels gloss over, suggesting a real situation.

To me, this suggests the collision of two separate stories. Like Robin Hood absorbing Maid Marian.

Also, the supporting characters in Jesus' story; James, Peter, Mary, and Mary Magdalene seem at least to be real people and not aechtypical play characters.

Yes, but do they contribute to the historicity of Jesus, or are they equally unknown?

And finally, the epistles of Paul, who never knew Jesus, but provides a link to those mentioned previously who actually did.

We can set aside all of Paul's writings because he wasn't in a position to know whether Jesus was real or not.

In a nutshell, these broad points are the basis on which I would argue for an actual historical character at the center of the Christian myth, rather than a wholly invented character.

Fine, but you are arguing for a person named Jesus, which falsifies christianity. If you found a steam-fitter's assistant in Harrogate named Moby Dick, it wouldn't support the historicity of the great White Whale.

Even in terms of a person, the historicity of Jesus is still zero. You can only argue that the stories about Jesus are more or less realistic. That's no quite the same as arguing that they happened.

DanZ

[Easyrider]

Quote: Even in terms of a person, the historicity of Jesus is still zero.

Nonsense.

The Historical Jesus:

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/hist ... stjesu.htm

p.s. It would take a Jesus to create a Jesus.

[Easyrider]

Lotan: I don't know why Fundamentalists are always complaining about the Jesus Seminar. According to one of Easyrider's links they judge 18% of Jesus' sayings from the NT to be genuine. I think that's quite generous.

Their Jesus couldn't save a gnat from a puddle of spit.