How strong is your belief in Jesus from an historic point of view?
- Thread starter Google
- Start date
I don't think it's possible to talk about Jesus without talking about the Gospels. they're the closest thing to a coherent historical record that exists.
Without the Bible, all that is left are a few scraps from Josephus, Tacitus, and others, written decades or centuries after the time of Jesus.
Without the Bible, all that is left are a few scraps from Josephus, Tacitus, and others, written decades or centuries after the time of Jesus.
About the same as I relate to Venusians.
I can't say any of them is impossible, just highly unlikely -- in my experience.
I would say "blown out of proportion". My call is that he was social reformer who got snapped up as a media icon. He was marketable. He was Elvis, but only after his death. Read the Jefferson Bible for a bible without the razzle-dazzle dog and pony show.
What would he be doing today? Probably throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. (I don't know why I think he would be Palestinian. Just an image. Where the hell was he from again?)
What would he be doing today? Probably throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. (I don't know why I think he would be Palestinian. Just an image. Where the hell was he from again?)
I think there was someone by that name (actually more like Yeshua) who was probably religious and had some followers, but it would be difficult to sort the myths from the facts.
Last edited:
Facial
Valued Senior Member
The letters of Paul, Mathew, Mark, and the source known as Q suggest that the "Christ" of Jesus does in fact exist. But he was just a good person, like Che and Socrates, and not a God. Fanatics to this day worship him as the "son of God" and act in perversions of all his character and beliefs.
He was either the Son of God incarnated or a liar/lunatic.
I thing you're mistaken...Socrates WAS a god(metaphorically).
shaky
you mean there were 2 Jesus's?
Logical Analysis from Tacitus
In around 117 Tacitus wrote in his 'Annals' regarding the fire in Rome of 64:
'Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired'
This is written only 53 years after an event which happened only eight years before Tacitus was born so it's the equivalent of someone today born in 1962 writing an historical record of something that happened in 1954. This would not be difficult and there would be lots of personal testimony to collate as well as official records available. If tacitus were lying, there would conversely be plenty who could have and would have disputed the account.
It is likley therefore that Tacitus's version is accurate.
That being the case there were a large number of people in 64 who were prepared to die for their belief in the life, death and resurrection of 'Christus'.
It appears that Tacitus believes this to be a name rather than the Latin version of 'christos' which is Greek for Messiah, but that is not particularly surprising for a Roman with little idea of Jewish religion.
Now 64 is only 34 years after the likely date for Jesus' crucifixion, so again if there was a new 'cult' based upon a non existent person or a non existent event, there would have been plenty of people still around who could prove the falsehood and plenty with a motive to do so (the Jewish religious establishment for instance). But this clearly did not happen. In fact the Jewish leaders (and thus mainstream Judaism to this day) has never denied the existence of Jesus as a person but still adheres to the Gospel reported story that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples whilst the guards were asleep.
This of course requires gross dereliction of duty by the guards (punishable by death in accordance with Roman military procedure) and also requires the disciples to have been inspired to be prepared to suffer martyrdom for their own deception and lie. Both are extremely unlikely.
The concept of the life of Jesus being a story made up centuries later there being no such historical character is a relatively modern idea promulgated by those with an anti-christian motive and on any objective analysis simply does not fit the facts.
'Yeshua' (which is transliterated to Jesus in English via Latin) was a common Jewish name (meaning 'God Saves'). It is the same name which (via Greek this time) is transliterated as Joshua. This is the reason why the Jesus to whom we are referring here is normally referred to as Jesus Christ or Jesus the Christ ('Jesus the Messiah'). This would explain Tacitus's confusion over the word 'Christus'.
If anyone wants to check historical evidence and make up their own mind, I recommend 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel.
Regards,
Gordon.
In around 117 Tacitus wrote in his 'Annals' regarding the fire in Rome of 64:
'Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired'
This is written only 53 years after an event which happened only eight years before Tacitus was born so it's the equivalent of someone today born in 1962 writing an historical record of something that happened in 1954. This would not be difficult and there would be lots of personal testimony to collate as well as official records available. If tacitus were lying, there would conversely be plenty who could have and would have disputed the account.
It is likley therefore that Tacitus's version is accurate.
That being the case there were a large number of people in 64 who were prepared to die for their belief in the life, death and resurrection of 'Christus'.
It appears that Tacitus believes this to be a name rather than the Latin version of 'christos' which is Greek for Messiah, but that is not particularly surprising for a Roman with little idea of Jewish religion.
Now 64 is only 34 years after the likely date for Jesus' crucifixion, so again if there was a new 'cult' based upon a non existent person or a non existent event, there would have been plenty of people still around who could prove the falsehood and plenty with a motive to do so (the Jewish religious establishment for instance). But this clearly did not happen. In fact the Jewish leaders (and thus mainstream Judaism to this day) has never denied the existence of Jesus as a person but still adheres to the Gospel reported story that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples whilst the guards were asleep.
This of course requires gross dereliction of duty by the guards (punishable by death in accordance with Roman military procedure) and also requires the disciples to have been inspired to be prepared to suffer martyrdom for their own deception and lie. Both are extremely unlikely.
The concept of the life of Jesus being a story made up centuries later there being no such historical character is a relatively modern idea promulgated by those with an anti-christian motive and on any objective analysis simply does not fit the facts.
'Yeshua' (which is transliterated to Jesus in English via Latin) was a common Jewish name (meaning 'God Saves'). It is the same name which (via Greek this time) is transliterated as Joshua. This is the reason why the Jesus to whom we are referring here is normally referred to as Jesus Christ or Jesus the Christ ('Jesus the Messiah'). This would explain Tacitus's confusion over the word 'Christus'.
If anyone wants to check historical evidence and make up their own mind, I recommend 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel.
Regards,
Gordon.
Greetings Gordon
Not at all.
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus circulating in Rome.
There is no evidence of that - just later legends attempting to support earlier legends.
Anyway - so what?
People die for false beliefs all the time - so what?
Heaven's Gate cult did - therefore according to your argument - their beliefs were correct.
Suicide Bombers still die for their beliefs - therefore according to your argument - their beliefs are correct.
This is a nonsense argument.
Nonsense.
The Jewish writings say all sorts of rubbish about Jesus :
* that he was the bastard son of Roman soldier
* that he learned black magic in Egypt
* that he burned his food
* that he was conceived during menses
* that he was stoned to death in Lydda
* that he had 5 disciples
Do you think that is accurate information about Jesus?
Rubbish.
Numerous authors have claimed Jesus was a myth for many centuries. And many early Christians denied Jesus ever came in the flesh.
The earliest Christian writings show NO KNOWLEDGE of any historical Jesus of Nazareth - Paul, James, Jude, John, Peter, Clement .. no mention of any historical Jesus.
Indeed,
no Christian even mentions the empty tomb until over a CENTURY after the alleged fact !
Pure apologetics.
No discussion of the issues - just preaching Christian beliefs.
Strobel is throughly proven wrong here:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm
Iasion
Not at all.
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
- Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
- Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
- This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus circulating in Rome.
There is no evidence of that - just later legends attempting to support earlier legends.
Anyway - so what?
People die for false beliefs all the time - so what?
Heaven's Gate cult did - therefore according to your argument - their beliefs were correct.
Suicide Bombers still die for their beliefs - therefore according to your argument - their beliefs are correct.
This is a nonsense argument.
Nonsense.
The Jewish writings say all sorts of rubbish about Jesus :
* that he was the bastard son of Roman soldier
* that he learned black magic in Egypt
* that he burned his food
* that he was conceived during menses
* that he was stoned to death in Lydda
* that he had 5 disciples
Do you think that is accurate information about Jesus?
Rubbish.
Numerous authors have claimed Jesus was a myth for many centuries. And many early Christians denied Jesus ever came in the flesh.
The earliest Christian writings show NO KNOWLEDGE of any historical Jesus of Nazareth - Paul, James, Jude, John, Peter, Clement .. no mention of any historical Jesus.
Indeed,
no Christian even mentions the empty tomb until over a CENTURY after the alleged fact !
Pure apologetics.
No discussion of the issues - just preaching Christian beliefs.
Strobel is throughly proven wrong here:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm
Iasion
Great post Iasion
You leave out a ton of other options, IAC. He could be fictional, and Paul could have been crazy or a liar (I personally think he was both). He could have been real, but others could have bastardized his teachings for their own gain (look at the subsequent 2,000 years of church history for much proof that this is likely).
The liar/lunatic argument was never a good one, and has been kicked in the teeth for many years now. Only people of unthinking devotion prop it up these days, and it just leads to another thrashing.
You leave out a ton of other options, IAC. He could be fictional, and Paul could have been crazy or a liar (I personally think he was both). He could have been real, but others could have bastardized his teachings for their own gain (look at the subsequent 2,000 years of church history for much proof that this is likely).
The liar/lunatic argument was never a good one, and has been kicked in the teeth for many years now. Only people of unthinking devotion prop it up these days, and it just leads to another thrashing.
If you called yourself the Messiah, swivel, I would call you a liar/lunatic, want to try?
Jesus, if he existed and if the Gospels are to be believed, never said he was the Messiah - but that others chose to call him that.
However, the 4 main Gospels are only one source - and not to be taken as any more or less significant or valid than any other source - and should be viewed as that until proven true / false.
One must also remember that they were written for a purpose - and thus would be expected to be full of bias and subjective interpretation to fit their desired audience and purpose.
However, that is also not say they should be dismissed out of hand, just understood and accepted for what they are.
However, the 4 main Gospels are only one source - and not to be taken as any more or less significant or valid than any other source - and should be viewed as that until proven true / false.
One must also remember that they were written for a purpose - and thus would be expected to be full of bias and subjective interpretation to fit their desired audience and purpose.
However, that is also not say they should be dismissed out of hand, just understood and accepted for what they are.
Sarkus, if you had to bet on whether Jesus existed and performed those miracles, or didn't, which way would you bet?
I've seen a man walk on water.
His name was Criss Angel.
His name was Criss Angel.
Existed? I would probably bet that there existed a man, probably named Jesus (or equivalent), on which the stories of the gospels are based. It wouldn't be a "safe bet" and I'm not sure how one could prove either way. But I would take a flutter. What odds are you offering?
Performing the miracles as described and accepting them as described, as events that defy the laws of the Universe - I would bet against it.
Doing things that might appear to defy the laws of the Universe through either exaggeration or misunderstanding of what actually happened etc - possibly.
Why do you want to know?