Is Jesus really a historical person

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexEtc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AlexEtc

Guest
Hi guys, I’ve read the article of Trent Horn and Jimmy Aikin about this topic. Can I have some more, as I need more support on this matter.Thanks.
 
Well, given that up until fairly recently in history, no one actually denied that he was or rather is, being a Christian I believe he lives forever, I would say that the people that are saying that he was not an historical person, are not paying attention to historical reality.
 
We have as much reason to believe in Jesus as a historical person as we do any other person in that time period. The gospels are modeled after Greco-Roman biographies, and we have four of them.

Even though they’re false gospels, those attributed to Mary, Judas and Thomas also offer their support to the historical Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Why would you not think Jesus is an historical person?

How do we know anyone is an historical real person?
We read documents.
The bible is a work of literature that is intertwined with history, and Jesus is spoken about in these documents just like George Washington is spoken about in documents. Or Plato. Pick a name. You trust in some sort of documentation that the person existed.
If you are going to doubt that Jesus existed you are in a state of extreme skepticism. (there are in fact people who deny the moon landing)
 
Last edited:
Even from a strict historical critical perspective, Occam’s Razor suggests a historical Galilean rabbi over the Jesus myth, at least. Let’s assume I’m an atheist. From an atheist’s perspective, the explanation for Jesus of Nazareth being born in Bethlehem seems convoluted for a total myth. If it’s a manufactured myth, why not just have him be from Bethlehem? The story then either smacks as a cover up or so unlikely that it’s true, but in either case, it only makes sense if a Nazarene origin was a historical fact that couldn’t be ignored. The crucifixion is the same once you consider how absurd a crucified messiah is. (I think nowadays most of us in a Christian culture are desensitized to this). Again, a crucified messiah and resurrection really only makes sense in the case of the crucifixion being a historical truth, one which is either so absurd it must be true or is an inconvenient historical fact that had to be explained away by his followers. If these things were all a myth, there’s no reason to be bound to these absurdities to begin with. The simplest explanation is that a Nazarene rabbi being crucified are historical details.

There’s more to be said.

And for the record, I am a Catholic and believe what the Church teaches. But I think even from an atheist’s perspective, using Occam’s Razor, one should find the most probable explanation is that there was a historical rabbi who had a Galilean following. We can’t definitively prove he existed anymore than many other ancient historical figures, but that doesn’t mean it’s rational to die by the sword that all of those figures are therefore myths, as some people are wont to do over the Jesus Myth hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
These objections to Jesus’ historicity boil down to extreme skepticism and/or extreme bias against anything related to religion.
There are elements that reflexively disregard anything related to religious figures.
And that’s blind prejudice.
 
I think a big question is what sort of evidence would you accept? We have accounts from Josephus and Tacitus. We have accounts of his followers in the gospels. We have descriptions of people who followed him, and of the Church that grew up around him.

In many cases we have as much, or more evidence for him than we do others.

So I guess what are you looking for?
 
Got totally confused by Jesus Mysthicist topic. Gave me sleepless nights.
 
Read that Josephus account had additional text by Christians ? Can the early Christians do that to Tacitus as well ?
 
I’m a cradle catholic but I’ve been bugged by sceptism for a while now, so I need a bit of help and reassurance.
 
AlexEtc said:
I’m a cradle catholic but I’ve been bugged by sceptism for a while now, so I need a bit of help and reassurance.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally I struggle with skepticism also. But the historical elements of the Gospel do not bother me any more than other historical figures.
My skepticism is over the theological truths of the faith.

My confessor invites me not to fear skepticism, as it can be a test of your faith and lead to greater depth. Do not be afraid to question and think. Just make sure you do it in good will. Faith is not intellectual certainty, it is a response to Christ and his grace.
Sometimes that is done without having everything neatly tied up in a bow.
 
goout said:
The bible is a work of literature that is intertwined with history, and Jesus is spoken about in these documents just like George Washington is spoken about in documents. Or Plato. Pick a name.
Click to expand...
Your argument is not convincing. There are many books and movies today that use real events and are mixed with fantasy. Some of the characters you may pick from these stories may be fictional.
The OP is correct in his struggle. Jesus exists depicted only in Christianity, parts of Judaism and Islam. Historically speaking, outside of these there are only recollects of events around Christianity.
According to our faith it is not by chance that he is not a historical figure. First because He is God, Who is above history. Second because Jesus Himself said that faith (belief) is without seeing. We are free to study but to link our Faith to historical evidence is not exactly methinks. Because He already told us His Kingdom is not of this world and we will be happy when we will believe without seeing.
So apart from some artefacts with or withoit miraculous powers He Himself left no scientific mark of His existence in this world?
The faith of certain people, Saints, is sometimes historically documented, sometimes not.
That is the definition of Faith - to believe in what you cannot see. Superstition is a kind of faith for example. We can argue that is the wrong faith but we cannot argue that faith in itself is devoided of superstition. We appear absurd to the rest of the world if we even try.
 
AlexEtc said:
Read that Josephus account had additional text by Christians ? Can the early Christians do that to Tacitus as well ?
Click to expand...
The Joseph’s text is considered a mixed bag from some scholars. I think the broader consensus is that some of it is interpolated and some of it isn’t, it depends on which quote, but that there is still a reference to Jesus. And then of course you have scholars who say the whole thing is legit and others who say all references are false.

Tacitus… I’m just going off of memory, but I don’t think there’s any real concern about his references.
 
First of all, I did not make an argument. I made an observation.
Secondly, I did not say that the OP was “incorrect in his struggle”. In fact I encouraged him a few posts ago by acknowledging his skepticism.
 
The Shroud of Turin has been proven by scientific tests to be about 2000 years old.* It contains an image of a crucified human corpse which is not a painting and has the characteristics of a photographic negative. No one has succeeded in accurately reproducing this relic.
I don’t know what more proof anyone could desire.

*THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST, Fanti/Malfi, 2015
A new edition is now coming out. If you are really looking for “proof,” spend a little money and get this book.
 
Michael Shermer, a famous (but generally not nasty) atheist publishes the magazine Skeptic which hardly can be called unbiased regarding Christianity’s claims, but a few years back (reluctantly) admitted Jesus of Nazareth was (as a human being) historical, largely on both Josephus and Tacitus.

I happen to have a review on Amazon where I refuted the Jesus-mythicist claims of a particularly silly book, maybe later I can c&p some pertinent points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top