Did he known as 'Jesus Christ' exist?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:39 am

It would seem that the True Christian® believes that salvation can only be found through Jesus Christ. What if he didn't exist?

To the best of my knowledge there is no contemporary accounts of the life of the man known as Jesus. Nor is there any reference to events that allegedly occured around the time of his supposed life. This despite the fact that the Romans and Greeks were both avid chronicle keepers.

In all the writings extant from that time Jesus is not mentioned. Also not mentioned - and you would think that such an event would be rather newsworthy - is the so called 'Massacre of the Innocents" - Herod's attempt to circumvent a rumour that a king had been born. No reference to major earthquakes, graves opening, the sun turning dark and so on.

Perhaps the whole thing was a myth. The similarities between the Christ story and others (e.g. Mithra) are startling. Paul, an educated man, would have been familiar with these and it is possible that the whole Christ story was a clever way for him to spread his favourite doctrine.

So True Christians®, what real evidence is there of the existence of said man?

Hint: the bible does not count as evidence - I would like to know of contemporary writings.

regards

Bernie

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:37 pm

Xueirdna wrote:
bernee51 wrote:So True Christians®, what real evidence is there of the existence of said man?

Hint: the bible does not count as evidence - I would like to know of contemporary writings.
Basically, your definition of contemporary evidence for Christ's existenc would be that which is written during his lifetime. The Bible does not count as evidence.

So, all I really have to say is contemporary evidence of Jesus Christ by your definition does not exist.

I would be interested to know if any Hebrew documents on any subject have survived since the time Jesus is believed to have walked the earth.

nikolayevich · Post by **nikolayevich** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:58 am

I'm not aware of Hebrew documents extant from first third of the first century.

I think there is some confusion here about contemporary evidence. Eyewitness accounts are always the most desirable from ancient times, as is true for the present. The New Testament writings were written by Jesus' contemporaries. I think you have to be overly technical to ignore this. That the accounts of His partial life span were written of in the latter half of His followers' lives should not give us so much pause as to ignore their significance.

dangerdan · Post by **dangerdan** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:55 pm

The New Testament writings were written by Jesus' contemporaries.

Was it? Last I checked most objective biblical scholars generally think that the gospels were written a couple generations after Christ, with the stories passed down orally to the actual authors.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:06 pm

dangerdan wrote:
The New Testament writings were written by Jesus' contemporaries.
Was it? Last I checked most objective biblical scholars generally think that the gospels were written a couple generations after Christ, with the stories passed down orally to the actual authors.

that is my understanding of it as well. I could be wrong but I think the earliest known texts that may be part of the NT are dated in the early 100's CE.

The fact that the 'final' version of what was to be in or out of the bible did not happen until the 4th century CE seems to be ignored (or most likely unknown to) by most christians.

dangerdan · Post by **dangerdan** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:56 am

that is my understanding of it as well. I could be wrong but I think the earliest known texts that may be part of the NT are dated in the early 100's CE.

Yeah, also they are have good reason to think that the different gospels were written at slightly different times, with some author aware of some of the other gospels, etc. What is also interesting is that not only do the books have different stories, but the very nature and personality of Jesus changes. In some he is generally portrayed as quite kind and forgiving, and others generally as a harsh law giver. Interesting stuff. Just pick up your nearest encyclopedia and look up “the bible”.

The fact that the 'final' version of what was to be in or out of the bible did not happen until the 4th century CE seems to be ignored (or most likely unknown to) by most christians.

Mm Hm. It’s interesting seeing how the modern cannon came to be, and who decided what made the cut and what didn’t. So that would mean (if the bible is to be taken as absolutely true) that absolutely no error, at all, has crept in for around four centuries of translation and editing. Wow.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:25 am

In all fairness, in a discussion of the historicity of Jesus, NT writings must be included, particularly those of Paul, the earliest of which were written only 12 years or so after Jesus' death. Although Paul has little to say about Yeshua of Nazareth and everything to say about Jesus Christ, still he provides valuable historical information. For example, he mentions the early church in Jerusalem, a family business run by Jesus' brother James, Mary, and Peter.
The later Gospels, although hardly objective history, contain useful information too. For example, the fact that Jesus was for a time a disciple of John the Baptist. Embarrassing for the evangelists, but apparently too well known to omit.
The position that Jesus never existed represents the extreme left wing in the spectrum of bible scholarship.

An excellent resource on this subject is "Saint Saul" by Donald Akenson. For a comparison of contemporary views on the historical Jesus see "Gospel Truth" by Russell Shorto.

nikolayevich · Post by **nikolayevich** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:15 am

Umm... why is it you contrast Yeshua of Nazareth with Jesus Christ?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:27 am

If you read your bible you will see that Paul has next to nothing to say about Jesus' life. He didn't know and he didn't care. What did interest him was the ressurected messiah, and Jesus fit the bill as far as he was concerned.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:28 pm

Lotan wrote:If you read your bible you will see that Paul has next to nothing to say about Jesus' life. He didn't know and he didn't care. What did interest him was the ressurected messiah, and Jesus fit the bill as far as he was concerned.

Could you provide some examples of this?

ENIGMA · Post by **ENIGMA** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 6:57 pm

ST88 wrote:
Lotan wrote:If you read your bible you will see that Paul has next to nothing to say about Jesus' life. He didn't know and he didn't care. What did interest him was the ressurected messiah, and Jesus fit the bill as far as he was concerned.
Could you provide some examples of this?

I might be off, but I'm a bit curious as to how one can provide an example of something not being said....