Do we have proof of a historical Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theCardinalbird

Guest
We all believe that Jesus walked the Earth, but do we have evidence (other than the Bible) that proves he was a historical figure?
 
Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are the common sources I use and see most often. None of them are Christians or even sympathetic to Christians.
 
Other than the bible? You mean other than 5 historical books, 21 letters, and one kinda crazy apocalypse? That’s a boat-load of evidence.
 
Yes, and if you discard religious books (for no good historical reason), then we have much more evidence for Jesus than even a much later figure like Mohammed, the false prophet of the Ishmaelites.

In Acts, there’s a phrase concerning first to Peter then to the 12 then to the 500. That is a very early, early Christian hymn. We know because while it appears in the language of the New Testament, it translates very easy into obvious prose to Aramaic.
 
Joe1 said:
We all believe that Jesus walked the Earth, but do we have evidence (other than the Bible) that proves he was a historical figure?
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair… what ‘evidence’ (other than testimonies that eventually made it into print) do we have of the existence of other important religious persons of his day? 😉
 
If there was no historical Jesus, how to explain the existence and rapid initial spread of Christianity? With no historical Jesus, then no crucifixion, hence no possibility of claiming a resurrection.

Why did people join a movement they could predict would anger the Roman authorities and bring persecution?
Why did they stay with the movement when persecution began?
 
Yes, there are scholars who study this from a pure historical non-religious perspective and they all generally agree that based on the historical evidence in Roman sources and such, Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified by Pontius Pilate. Everything else about his life gets debated.
 
The translation Greek used by Paul in a few epistles is also evidence that he learned a formula, spoken in Aramaic, that he’s copying down, which suggest High Christology going back to at minimum 51AD, and so we can reasonably conclude that Christ’s divinity was not a product of mythologozing or embellishment, which is a common criticism I deal with regularly.
 
I did. What I found was a letter from Pliny to some official, and a site that tries to disprove all the people who spoke of Jesus
 
I don’t think Pliny the Younger made any direct references to the existence of Jesus (I maybe not entirely correct though), he spoke more about the Christians of that time.

Josephus makes a more direct reference to Jesus and about his death and the beliefs that people held at that time.
 
I don’t think many historians doubt the existence of Jesus as a person. The consensus view is that he was a historical person. But of course, the mere existence of the man Jesus does not establish the other claims of Christianity.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
I don’t think many historians doubt the existence of Jesus as a person. The consensus view is that he was a historical person.
Click to expand...
True, but you would be surprised at how many people who dislike religion insist that Jesus simply didn’t exist at all, that this is made up from beginning to end. A few months ago, somebody on a discussion group that is not religious asked the question “do you believe Jesus existed” and 80 percent of the responses were “no, he never existed”. A few people who appeared to be more educated pointed out that historical evidence indicated he did exist, although whether he was the Son of God etc was something else again.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
True, but you would be surprised at how many people who dislike religion insist that Jesus simply didn’t exist at all, that this is made up from beginning to end. A few months ago, somebody on a discussion group that is not religious asked the question “do you believe Jesus existed” and 80 percent of the responses were “no, he never existed”. A few people who appeared to be more educated pointed out that historical evidence indicated he did exist, although whether he was the Son of God etc was something else again.
Click to expand...
I think there was a lot of mutual misunderstanding going on in that exchange. The name: “Jesus” was a very common name back then, and it is quite common name today in certain cultures. Also the horrific custom of crucifixion was a common way to deal with “criminals”. None of that can be disputed. So to say that a person who was named “Jesus” and who was crucified is quite possible.

But the question of “Did Jesus exist” is about the historicity of the specific Jesus of Nazareth, who allegedly performed all those miracles. And there is not one iota of evidence for those miracles. Not that those miracles - if they actually happened - would be more than a ho-hum moment. Any half educated magician could repeat them.
 
The same happens with the Bible, and it seems like most people who dismiss it have a personal ax to grind where religion (Christianity especially) is concerned.
 
Scowler said:
I think there was a lot of mutual misunderstanding going on in that exchange. The name: “Jesus” was a very common name back then, and it is quite common name today in certain cultures. Also the horrific custom of crucifixion was a common way to deal with “criminals”. None of that can be disputed. So to say that a person who was named “Jesus” and who was crucified is quite possible.
Click to expand...
There was no mutual misunderstanding going on. The specific question was whether some person named Jesus who fit the description, completely apart from religion, existed. I’d say about 50 people responded saying that Jesus was a fiction of the Church, similar to the Easter Bunny. About 10 people with history degrees and the like pointed out how stupid it was to say that since there was evidence that a person named Jesus existed during the time of Pilate and was crucified. (Of these 10 people, I think about 2 of them, me and one other guy, were the only ones with any religious belief in Jesus.) They were pretty much told to sod off.

But please feel free to think this was some kind of a godly believers vs. unbelievers’ discussion if this makes you feel better, although it wasn’t anything of the kind. The bottom line is that a lot of people do not care what history books or historical evidence says about anything. Their beliefs are controlled by their emotions.
 
Last edited:
Scowler said:
I think there was a lot of mutual misunderstanding going on in that exchange. The name: “Jesus” was a very common name back then, and it is quite common name today in certain cultures. Also the horrific custom of crucifixion was a common way to deal with “criminals”. None of that can be disputed. So to say that a person who was named “Jesus” and who was crucified is quite possible.

But the question of “Did Jesus exist” is about the historicity of the specific Jesus of Nazareth, who allegedly performed all those miracles. And there is not one iota of evidence for those miracles. Not that those miracles - if they actually happened - would be more than a ho-hum moment. Any half educated magician could repeat them.
Click to expand...
Feed five thousand men (plus however many women and children were there) on five loaves of bread and a couple of fish? I doubt very much that any ‘magician’ could do that, or convincingly fake it at a public meeting.

Find a man blind from birth, known by the whole neighborhood to be such, touch his eyes and he starts seeing? No. The illusion could only be done if it was someone not known in the neighborhood. With someone they know it would have to be real or everyone would know it was faked. And once known to be real nobody is going to be ho-hum about it.

Walk up to a bier, tell the dead man on it, “Come back to life now” and they do? Sure, with enough preparation, and if the ‘dead man’ is a stranger. But when the dead man is a local resident and a lot of locals have seen for themselves that he’s dead, to just walk into the neighborhood, walk up to the bier and raise him? No. That would not be any ho-hum moment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top