Who was the real Jesus? Did he even exist? I'm sorry about my frequent posts about Jesus and christianity, but these questions have been bugging me for the past few months, I know that the shroud of turin is actually from the middle ages, and that the James osuary probably doesn't belong to that James, and that the writings of josephus and various others that most people claim are extra biblical records of Jesus are more than likely forgeries, but is there any reliable information about Jesus? Is there any conclusive proof that he did or didn't exist? and what about the other important characters in the bible? is there any conclusive proof that they did or didn't exist?
There is no "conclusive" proof. Most scholars seem to think that Jesus probably was a historical figure (I'm not talking about the supernatural claims here of course). I think he probably didn't exist. Richard Carrier has written several books that present the case that the historical Jesus more than likely didn't exist.
Thanks, I'll do that when I'm not tired, I'm trying to change my sleep cycle so I've been awake longer than I usually am. lol
The problem is that the story of Jesus is so full of myths taken from the Old Testament, that even if he did exist, we will not be able to get to the original Jesus, unless we find some independent evidence for him in the archeological record. As to the other characters in the bible, some of them did exist. Pilate is the prime example. Others such as Joseph of Arimathea probably didn't. Paul also mentions Cephas/Peter, but the gospel version of him is probably also fiction.
Ilikeponies579: Yes, there is documentary evidence--outside the Bible--that confirm the historicity of Jesus Christ. This documentary evidence is found in the writings of secular historians, some of whom were opposed to Christianity. Yet, they confirmed in their historical writings that the Jesus Christ of the Bible did indeed exist. Below are three such individuals. PERSON #1: Name and Occupation: Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian DOB to Date of Death: A.D. 55 to A.D. 120 Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile What He Said: He confirmed that CHRISTUS (a common misspelling of Christ at the time) was executed by Pilate. Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome." PERSON #2: Name and Occupation: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian DOB to Date of Death: 37 AD -- Died after 100 AD Attitude Towards Christianity: Apathetic (could care less about them) What He Said: He confirmed that Christ who performed miracles was executed by Pilate. Highlights on Josephus: A Jewish historian of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the 1st century AD (the century in which Jesus Christ lived and died). He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Flavius Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death. PERSON #3: Name and Occupation: Pliny The Younger (born Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus), Roman Governor DOB to Date of Death: 61 AD to 112 AD Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile. He executed Christians What He Said: Referred to Jesus Christ as a "god of the Christians." Highlights on Pliny: Pliny condemned Men, Women, and children to death if they refused to curse Christ and if they refused to deny they were Christians. Alter2Ego
Ilikeponies579: That claim--by skeptics--about forged writing, applies only to one of Josephus' entries. And it remains an unsubstantiated claim until evidence can be presented to prove it. No such evidence exists. Alter2Ego
Ha, the usual suspects. One of the problems is, they all agree with the bible, they don't tell us anything new. The second and related problem is, we know the second probably come from Christian sources, and the first, Tacitus, may have as well. Pliny certainly did. Chronologically, the first source is Josephus, and his two mentions of Jesus. The shorter, referring to his brother is grammatically unusual (the subject object order is reversed), and is probably a marginal note that was later copied into the text sometime in the second century AD. The second mention is the Testimonium Flavianum, or TF for short. Despite the claims of Alter2Ego, there IS evidence it was partially forged, and further evidence that part of it came from Christian sources. Olson analysed various words in the TF as used by both Josephus and the 4th century chronicler, Eusebius and found that the word usage match Eusebius, not Josephus. (http://www.academia.edu/4062154/Olson_A_Eusebian_Reading_of_the_Testimonium_Flavianum_2013). Goldberg also analysed part of the TF, and due to the similarity of a strange grammatical form between part of the TF and Luke's road to Emmaus passage, concluded that both Luke and Josephus probably used a Christian source. (Goldberg, G. J. 1995 "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus" The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13, pp. 59–77). The second source is Pliny, who we can dismiss straight away for one simple reason. He tells us his source, and that was the Christians themselves, who would have used the bible as their source. So Pliny is not independent of the bible, and is therefore useless in telling us anything about an historical Jesus. Tacitus is more problematical, because he does not tell us his source. However, he was good friends with Pliny, and because he may have got his information from Pliny, we can not guarantee his independence from the bible. There is a further problem with Tacitus. The second and third century Christians recorded various persecutions, yet not once do they use the passage from Tacitus, the obvious candidate to use. This may well be because it is a later, Christian invention, although there are many historians who argue it is genuine. The fact that they all confirm the bible may well be because they all come from Christian sources.
Others have already made some good posts that I agree with, but I'll add my own views as well. There's an absolutely vast literature in which various writers have tried to figure out who 'the historical Jesus' was and what his original message might have been. Unfortunately, the results have been all over the map. There's not a whole lot of information to go on. My own view, which is consistent with a great deal of scholarly opinion I think, is that Jesus was a Jew. The reason for noting that obvious fact is to emphasize that Jesus probably thought as other Jews of his time thought and saw things in distinctively Jewish ways. That doesn't necessarily mean in so-called 'Old Testament' ways. Jesus was probably strongly influenced, as most Palestinian Jews of his time were, by so-called 'intertestamental Judaism' with its messianic and apocalyptic expectations. Being a Jew, Jesus would probably have considered it blasphemy to even suggest that he was God in human flesh. I expect that Jesus imagined himself as a prophet and may have even thought that he was the awaited messiah. But my suspicion is that the real Jesus would be aghast and horrified if he could see the 'Christianity' that has arisen in his name, worshipping him in the place of God. There does seem to be a distinctive ethical tone to many of the things that the gospels have him saying, and that might be reflective of the man. Nobody really knows for sure. Most scholarly opinion thinks that he probably did. I'm inclined to agree with that.
You do know that skepticism is a good thing, don't you? It is wise to question any claim and especially claims of the extraordinary. If you're not a skeptic, you're gullible. As for Jesus, my guess is that, like most fictional characters, he was based on one or more real people.
Jägermeister: Thank you for point out to the forum that Cornelius Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, and Pliny The Younger might have gotten their information from Christians, whom they all despised. So all three of them confirmed that Jesus existed--outside the pages of the Bible--despite the fact their sources were Christian. QUESTION #1 to JÄGERMEISTER: Clearly, Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger BELIEVED their sources. YES or NO. QUESTION #2 to JÄGERMEISTER: If no, why would all three of them have confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings, despite the fact their sources were Christians ONLY--as you claim? How do you answer? Alter2Ego
No, all three do not confirm his existence. A hypothetical to demonstrate my point - If Richard Carrier is correct, and Jesus did not exist, then the bible accounts of Jesus are false. They are recording an imaginary person as historical. If Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny got their information indirectly from the Bible, then their information is also false. They too would be recording an imaginary person as historical. What we need, and I would like to see, is definite, independent evidence, although this is unlikely to happen. Pliny is recording what he learnt, whether he believed it or not he does not indicate. Tacitus (if genuine) and Josephus certainly appeared to believe their sources. I never claimed their sources were Christian, I only said they probably were. And the fact that they could be, means they can not be used as independent evidence for the existence of Jesus. Second, they do not confirm the existence of Jesus. They are just recording the belief that Jesus existed.
If you look at life of Jesus, in the context of what becomes of the early Christians, one would expect that those who persecuted the Christians, all the way to their tortuous death, would also want to remove all traces of the mention of Jesus, so they can better dissuade future recruits. It would make no sense for all the written accounts of Jesus, the Roman gathered, as they rounded up Christians for execution, be preserved in museums. To destroy the faith, they needed to discredit it and make it harder to teach, by removing all hard data that gives any credibility or documented information. When the IRS was caught breaking the law, with the Tea Party, data files began to mysteriously disappear, until it was hearsay. Historian will then get to debate whether this was real or not, until witnesses step forward when it is safe to come out without fear of retaliation by crooks in high places.
There is some good scholarship on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot:_The_Life_and_Times_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth
Someone existed that taught love thy neighbor as thyself and love thy God with all thy heart. The concept of forgiveness among the people who were taught it was unique. The Romans released lions on the early Christians, why? If Jesus didn't exist. At the end of the day, use a little logic and a little faith and you will get your answer. This is opinion only.
Jesus could have existed in legend, which didn't necessarily correspond to the traits of the real man. Or he could be a composite of several rebellious rabbis that existed at the time. I mean, there isn't a single Christian who saw him alive, his contemporary followers were Jews.
It's possible, but the legacy of an individual continues today, albeit most of the religious establishments bastardise what he actually taught, they are all stuck in the pauline writings.
