The Historicity of Jesus Christ

Cypress said:
The Gospels and Paul represent five different independent sources for the historicity of Jesus. Six, if you count the Gospel of Thomas.
Click to expand...
For a Christian, sure. From the perspective of a disciplined professional historian, they don't count.

A Christian's faith alone is sufficient for him to be convinced him that Jesus was a real historical figure and that the accounts attributed to him are completely credible.

An historian, on the other hand, will point to the doubt that the gospels were actually written by the person indicated, and that they might actually have been written by others who claimedwitness to those teachings, e.g. John's gospel being written by some literate individuals who claimed to have witnessed John's ministry about Jesus, meaning that Jesus might have never actually existed and was a character fabricated by John, or that even John and his entire ministry was a fabrication by some literate individuals.

An historian needs first-hand accounts, and he applies a certain level of dubiousness to any and all hearsay. Hence the complete absence of first-hand accounts of Romans writing about Jesus casts heavy doubt on an historian who is not motivated by Christian faith. Of course, Christian faith has the characteristic of removing such doubt.

When you say that the Gospels represent independent sources, you are saying that you are a Christian and that you have no doubt about the gospels' credibility in "revealing" the historicity of Jesus. To that, I respond "Good for you. Put your faith to good use."

You are not, however, going to convince anyone of said credibility in any absolute sense, and Christians would be ill-advised to try pursuing such. The Christian faith rests on its underlying message, not on any quantity of surviving documentation, and no absence of documentation can kill a message's resonance.

Cypress said:
Archeology confirms the historicity of some of the important figures mentioned in the Gospels.
Click to expand...
The gospels are words. Archaeology cannot confirm anything about words.

Cypress said:
The Jewish historian Josephus, and the Roman historian Tacitus ...
Click to expand...
... could not confirm anything by any historian's standards. They provided no first-hand accounts of Jesus, and merely commented on what they learned from having read the gospels, just as any Christian can do today.

Cypress said:
Even prominent atheist religious scholars like Bart Ehrman laugh at the idea that this body of written attestations are only just the result of a vast web of lies and a Mediterranean-wide conspiracy.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter at what even he laughs.
 
EdwinA said:
Somebody said they don't believe in the 'Jesus walked on the water' story literally. That misses the point; in Jewish thought land represented the real, normal world, while the sea represented chaos in the spiritual world. The story is meant to convey that God is able to overcome the spiritual uncertainty, and so can believers, hence Peter makes the effort and does so too. Is that a lie?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep using the word "lie"?

 
IBDaMann said:
A Christian's faith alone is sufficient for him to be convinced him that Jesus was a real historical figure and that the accounts attributed to him are completely credible.
Click to expand...

For anyone who is religious, faith has to be sufficient because of the lack of actual evidence.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Why do people always assume that if the Gospels aren't true it is either a "conspiracy" or a "con"?
Click to expand...
I do not. I treat it like an Aesop's Fables.



Obtenebrator said:
Why couldn't the stories that wound up in the Gospels be a mix of SOME real stuff (like a real dude named Joshua who was a preacher) and some stuff that got integrated over time through mishearings of people "gilding the lily" to make a stronger point.
Click to expand...
To those who are convinced that the gospels are all true, there simply isn't any that is false, and claims of such are inconsequential.
 
IBDaMann said:
For a Christian, sure. From the perspective of a disciplined professional historian, they don't count.

A Christian's faith alone is sufficient for him to be convinced him that Jesus was a real historical figure and that the accounts attributed to him are completely credible.

An historian, on the other hand, will point to the doubt that the gospels were actually written by the person indicated, and that they might actually have been written by others who claimedwitness to those teachings, e.g. John's gospel being written by some literate individuals who claimed to have witnessed John's ministry about Jesus, meaning that Jesus might have never actually existed and was a character fabricated by John, or that even John and his entire ministry was a fabrication by some literate individuals.

An historian needs first-hand accounts, and he applies a certain level of dubiousness to any and all hearsay. Hence the complete absence of first-hand accounts of Romans writing about Jesus casts heavy doubt on an historian who is not motivated by Christian faith. Of course, Christian faith has the characteristic of removing such doubt.

When you say that the Gospels represent independent sources, you are saying that you are a Christian and that you have no doubt about the gospels' credibility in "revealing" the historicity of Jesus. To that, I respond "Good for you. Put your faith to good use."

You are not, however, going to convince anyone of said credibility in any absolute sense, and Christians would be ill-advised to try pursuing such. The Christian faith rests on its underlying message, not on any quantity of surviving documentation, and no absence of documentation can kill a message's resonance.


The gospels are words. Archaeology cannot confirm anything about words.


... could not confirm anything by any historian's standards. They provided no first-hand accounts of Jesus, and merely commented on what they learned from having read the gospels, just as any Christian can do today.


It really doesn't matter at what even he laughs.
Click to expand...
Too much word salad to slog through

You're free to believe there is no historical data attainable from the Christian writings, even though that would make you a laughing stock in all reputable ancient history and religious studies university departments
 
Obtenebrator said:
If part of the Gospels are untrue
Click to expand...
^^^ Attempts to surreptitiously change and divert the topic of the thread.

The topic is whether or not the man Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person.

The topic is not whether he was divine, whether the miracles literally happened, or whether everything in the Christian canon is literally true.
 
Obtenebrator said:
But the fact remains that even the OLDEST Gospel is still separated from Christ's life by a couple of decades.
Click to expand...
You used to say nobody wrote anything about Jesus for six decades, so after reading my posts you finally learned that claim was incorrect.

But you are still shooting wide of the mark.

The earliest gospel was probably written at least 30 years after the crucifixion, not two decades. But it credibly can be interpreted as the firsthand reports of Peter, as recorded an organized by his companion Mark.

Paul's letters are the Christian writings that are more like about 20 years after the crucifixion.
But in Corinthians, Paul mentions much earlier writings or oral reports about Jesus he had received and passed on to the churches of his mission. Corinthians is written around 50 AD, and Paul began his ministry to the gentiles in the early 40s or late 30s. So these earlier reports or writings Paul received and shared with his ministry arguably go back to the earliest years of the Church in Jerusalem in the 30s.

Wrapping up, we have historical data points showing that there were reports of Jesus going back to the earliest days of the Jerusalem church in the 30s, and the evangelists Paul and Mark were in direct contact with the original Apostles of Jesus.
 
Cypress'll Fix It! said:
^^^ Attempts to surreptitiously change and divert the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The topic is whether or not the man Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person.
Click to expand...

Which is what I've been talking about. But you haven't read my posts so you look like a moron.

The topic is not whether he was divine, whether the miracles literally happened, or whether everything in the Christian canon is literally true.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read my posts before you respond.
 
Cypress said:
^^^ Attempts to surreptitiously change and divert the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

I was on this thread before you were. Shut the fuck up.

O

Post in thread 'The Historicity of Jesus Christ'

Alter2Ego said:
A favorite argument by non-believers is that Jesus Christ's existence is confined to the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible. When presented with documentary evidence of his historical existence, Bible critics then use another ploy: they attack the credibility of those who confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ and/or they attack the credibility of what was written about Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

It may very well be that there was a historical Jesus. As a non-believer I'm A-OK with that being the case. And indeed many scholars now believe he was historically real. I think the key point is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top