Historicity of Jesus.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brenlae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brenlae

Guest
Hi! I’m starting a new discussion thread on the historicity of Jesus. I would lke posters to post extra-biblical information / evidence on the historicity of Jesus Christ. Also, if someone could explain why the Gospels differ so much that would be interesting.

Any evidence that you think is good enough, feel free to post it!

🙂

Thanks!

God Bless. 🙂

EDIT - Biblical evidence may be used as well. 🙂
 
Let’s have a look at some of the evidence:
  • Secular References to Jesus between the first and third centuries:
  • Josephus
  • Pliny the Younger
  • Tacitus
  • Mara Bar-Serapion
  • Lucian
  • Seutonius
  • Talmudic References
  • Thallus
  • Archeological Items and Sites (Take these with a grain of salt)
  • Shroud of Turin
  • Nazareth Site
  • Pieces of the True Cross
  • Textual Elements in the New Testament to indicate a Historical Jesus
  • Paul as an eyewitness
  • Criterion of Embarrassment
  • Criterion of Multiple Attestation
  • Criterion of Dissimilarity
  • Christian Martyrs & The Criterion of Crucifixion
 
Brenlae said:
…if someone could explain why the Gospels differ so much that would be interesting.
Click to expand...
I think a likely reason that there is so much difference in the details of the Gospels would be that no two witnesses to the same event will describe it exactly. Unless they collaborate on their stories beforehand.
For instance, say two people both witness a car accident. One may notice the colors of the cars and speed they were doing. The other may notice the makes and models, and who was in the driver’s seats. Each witness to an event is going to remember and relate the details differently from anyone else, unless the story is prefabricated and the multiple witnesses get together to hammer out the details.
 
There’s no doubt as to the historicity of Jesus.

Where you find disagreement is who he was/is!

Most people will agree that he was a dynamic preacher (and possibly a less-than-adept carpenter).

Fewer people, though still many, would agree that in addition, Jesus was also a Healer.

Even fewer people, though still many, would agree that in addition, Jesus was a Prophet.

And even fewer people, though still many…
 
Well the differencces of Gospel accounts can be found from the fact that these were written years later. That can cause minor differences. The Gospels are all written by different people who emphasize different things. Some parts may be left out in one which is included in the others. The Gospels were also written for different people. One is geared toward the Jewish faith while another is meant for gentiles. This can create a different style in each of the Gospels. However, in all of this, the message is the same. Christ lived among us, preached, performed miracles, died on a cross, and rose from the dead.
 
Alright, thanks everybody! I really appreciate all of the feedback! 🙂

I’ll have to look up the historical references when I have some free time. 😃

Thanks again! 🙂
 
The Synoptic Gospels, though varying in small degrees, were pretty much a record of Jesus public ministry. Scholars believe there was a very early source, called Q, that the writers used as a guide, generally Mark is regarded as the earliest cannonical Gospell with Matthew and Luke sometime prior to the mid 60s AD. John has been called the Gospel for the Christian, it is less than a historical narative and more about Jesus divinity and relationships with people. I am not a biblical scholar, but I think John wrote this because he was familiar with the other three Gospels and wanted to write from a different perspective.
 
Anyone who denies the historicity of Jesus has to explain the origin of His teaching which is the basis of modern civilisation…
 
I just finished reading “Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture” by Marvin Harris. (1974)

Harris is an anthropologist, and it’s interesting to see how he puts together a “historical view” of Jesus and others at that time.

If nothing else, the chapters on “Messiahs” and “The Secret of the Prince of Peace” are fascinating. Some parts are very compelling, others…not so much!

Caution: Only for open-minded folk who aren’t threatened by alternate theories! :hypno:
 
Pieman333272 said:
Let’s have a look at some of the evidence:
  • Secular References to Jesus between the first and third centuries:
  • Josephus
  • Pliny the Younger
  • Tacitus
  • Mara Bar-Serapion
  • Lucian
  • Seutonius
  • Talmudic References
  • Thallus
  • Archeological Items and Sites (Take these with a grain of salt)
  • Shroud of Turin
  • Nazareth Site
  • Pieces of the True Cross
  • Textual Elements in the New Testament to indicate a Historical Jesus
  • Paul as an eyewitness
  • Criterion of Embarrassment
  • Criterion of Multiple Attestation
  • Criterion of Dissimilarity
  • Christian Martyrs & The Criterion of Crucifixion
Click to expand...
I think to appease the minimalist skeptics you could reduce the above list as follows, which would still suffice:
  • Secular References to Jesus between the first and third centuries:
  • Josephus
  • Tacitus
  • Seutonius
  • Textual Elements in the New Testament to indicate a Historical Jesus
  • Criterion of Embarrassment
  • Criterion of Multiple Attestation
  • Criterion of Dissimilarity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top