The historicity of Jesus

[Lurker]

Shirriff note: Prim split this discussion off at yovargas's request from his thread "Who is the most Important Person in History?" (Link). Lurker, retitle this if you like.

_________

First of all, I would hesitate to choose Jesus of Nazareth because his historical existence is not enitrely prooed (not probabaly provable). So how can you claim someone is the most important person in history if you are not even sure he has existed. The bible is certainly one of the most influencing books, but it is not a history book. So, I odn't think that Jesus can be an answer to the question "how is the most important person.." if you say figure maybe... but what he was a living person. Personnally, I tend to think that the person named "Jesus" wha has acutally lived has only little to do with the description in the Bible.

Yes, the bible is not a history book but it accounts what was happening during the time of "Jesus". Even the Koran wrote about Jesus, so how can you not be convinced he doesn't exist? He is a part of history because, people wouldn't call themselves Christians if he did not actually exist and change the course of history somewhat, esp. during his time when state and religion went hand in hand. There wouldn't be Crusades for example. Why do we go by B.C. and A.D. when we talk about history then?

I could cite books that are non-fiction but it accounts much more than what was written in a lot of historical books. Take the "Diary of Anne Frank" for example. It's written by a young girl not a historian but it is one of the important personal accounts of what was happening during the Nazi regime, proof that indeed the holocaust happened. I find history books too boring to read, I learned more about history reading non-fiction.

All the history books does is show you dates, who are the prominent historical figures and you don't get to read what was happening behind the scenes, the sight, the sound etc... wherein you actually feel you are right there.

[elfshadow]

Yes, the bible is not a history book but it accounts what was happening during the time of "Jesus". Even the Koran wrote about Jesus, so how can you not be convinced he doesn't exist?

Well, the Qur'an was written over 600 years after Jesus supposedly lived. If Jesus (bear with me here) never actually existed, how was Mohammed to know? By the 600s Jesus was already established as a historical figure. It would be like someone of our era writing about, say, Dante, who lived about 700 years ago. Isn't it possible that someone could have made Dante up? There have been similar theories about whether Shakespeare was actually one person as well.

[Lurker]

Yes, the bible is not a history book but it accounts what was happening during the time of "Jesus". Even the Koran wrote about Jesus, so how can you not be convinced he doesn't exist?

Well, the Qur'an was written over 600 years after Jesus supposedly lived. If Jesus (bear with me here) never actually existed, how was Mohammed to know? By the 600s Jesus was already established as a historical figure. It would be like someone of our era writing about, say, Dante, who lived about 700 years ago. Isn't it possible that someone could have made Dante up? There have been similar theories about whether Shakespeare was actually one person as well.

I agree but during the ancient times esp. the time of Jesus (only a few people have access to papyrus paper) the only way you can teach history to the younger generation was through word of mouth. I am convinced that if in fact, he is just a figure of the imagination of a few people he wouldn't be that popular. Say maybe, Jesus is a very good doctor during that time, that's why he was able to make a blind person see again or a cripple walk or a chemist (turning water into wine) or a political reformist but I am not convinced he didn't exist.

We would questioning almost all historical figures before the written word became popular if we question stuff like whether Shakespeare is one person or two or three etc... Did the black plague really happen? etc...

[Jnyusa]

I am convinced that if in fact, he is just a figure of the imagination of a few people he wouldn't be that popular.

Like ... Obi-Wan Kenobi, say?

Sorry - I don't mean to be dismissive of Jesus (and my own opinion is that he probably did exist) but 'popular' is not a word that I usually connect with the influence of religious figures. Your description tickled me, Lurker.

[yovargas]

Though ya'll can feel free to argue about it elsewhere, for the sake of this discussion, I'd like to assume for this discussion that Jesus existed, taught pretty much what is attributed to him, and really did inspire his disciples to go out and preach.

[elfshadow]

Fair enough, yov!

But with regards to your original question, I still believe that another Messiah might very well have taken the place of Jesus had he not existed as a historical figure, just as someone might easily have found fire if the first person to find it had not.

[yovargas]

Perhaps. But a different "Messiah" would necessarily have brought different teachings. So the question is, how important have Jesus' teachings been to world history?

[baby tuckoo]

Gratiously settled, yov and elf, but the distinction between Jesus and many others whose acts are questioned is that there is no contemporaneous confirmation by unbiased sources.


That Shakespeare existed is irrefutable. That the man from Stratford wrote the plays is sometimes contended (by silly people), but his existence is confirmed within his own time by literary record.


Not so with Jesus.

[The Watcher]

Gratiously settled, yov and elf, but the distinction between Jesus and many others whose acts are questioned is that there is no contemporaneous confirmation by unbiased sources.


That Shakespeare existed is irrefutable. That the man from Stratford wrote the plays is sometimes contended (by silly people), but his existence is confirmed within his own time by literary record.


Not so with Jesus.

And just how did Shakespeare influence the world in ways that would not exist had he NOT been around? Merely asking.

[baby tuckoo]

I didn't claim that he had, nor would I. The Elizabethan Age had plenty of lights. I was responding to the previous regarding existence.


I don't think any artist could qualify for "Most Important" under even a broad definition of Important.

[The Watcher]

I didn't claim that he had, nor would I. The Elizabethan Age had plenty of lights. I was responding to the previous regarding existence.


I don't think any artist could qualify for "Most Important" under even a broad definition of Important.

Well, lots of people "existed" in that term, Jesus included, at least according to Josephus. He certainly would have no reason to make it up. It is what may or may not be attributed to such actual personages that is what seems to mainly come under debate.

[vison]

I didn't claim that he had, nor would I. The Elizabethan Age had plenty of lights. I was responding to the previous regarding existence.


I don't think any artist could qualify for "Most Important" under even a broad definition of Important.

Well, lots of people "existed" in that term, Jesus included, at least according to Josephus. He certainly would have no reason to make it up. It is what may or may not be attributed to such actual personages that is what seems to mainly come under debate.

Josephus is not that reliable, actually.

There are no mentions of Jesus in the contemporary Roman accounts of the region, which is more telling to me.

[Jnyusa]

Well, and scholars of the period are pretty certain that the reference to Jesus was inserted into Josephus at a later date, probably for that reason - to offer independent account of his existence. It's not actually part of the original manuscript, nor is it contemporary. That is what I have read, at least.

[The Watcher]

Well, then I will pull a "kushana" on you and offer evidence for Jesus existing as a result of what occurred well after the "possibility" of his life and death. Why on earth would the Romans be so perturbed about James, the brother of Jesus, the leader of the Jerusalem "Christian Church" and Peter and Paul as other propagators of the same faith? If Christ did not exist, all that can be said is that natives of Judea were certainly suspect to amounts of mass hysteria and changing their own actions and going out for no rational reason to spread a philosophy that was radical for the times based on someone who was a delusion...

How ironic, that I am arguing the personage of Christ when I am a totally comfortably happy agnostic.... :D:D

In any case, we are gettiong FAR FAR FAR off of the original post by yovi.

[Frelga]

I thought James was brother of John, not Jesus?

I also didn't know that the Romans were particularly perturbed about the Jerusalem "Christian Church." Could you point me to the sources? I am not doubting you, I'm just interested in that period.

If Christ did not exist, all that can be said is that natives of Judea were certainly suspect to amounts of mass hysteria and changing their own actions and going out for no rational reason to spread a philosophy that was radical for the times based on someone who was a delusion...

Well, actually... Romans were generally perturbed about the unceasing rebellion that fomented in Judea shortly after the time of Jesus. In 70CE the Great Revolt was crushed and the Temple destroyed. In 132CE Simeon Bar Kokhba, believed to be the Messiah, led the last, disastrous uprising which ended in expulsion of Jews from the ruins of Jerusalem. Those were the times when millennial mood prevailed and the end of world was generally believed to be near.

Nor was the Jesus's teaching exactly radical. It was, in fact, a logical offshoot of the Jewish thought in the troubled times of Roman oppression. What was the use, Jews asked, of complying with the age-old customs when Romans broke most of the laws twice before breakfast and they were in charge. In answer, a new idea took root - that it was OK that the bad guys prevailed in this life, because God would make everything all right after you died. This was the premise taken up by the young preacher from Galilee.

The two radical ideas were, to the best of my knowledge, introduced by the followers of Jesus long after his death. The first was that it was permissible for the followers of Jesus not to follow the Biblical laws. Especially dispensing with circumcision gained Christianity many Roman followers, who were already attracted to Jewish ideas.

More later, dinner time.

[The Watcher]

Frelga -

There are multiple James in the New Testament, one, called James the Just, is widely regarded nowadays to be Jesus' brother or half brother, or in the Catholic tradition, his cousin. In any case, he WAS known to be the first head of what was considered the Jerusalem church, and was significant in his more Judaic traditional outlook, which caused seemingly quite early on a split with more radical apostles such as Peter, Paul, and John. James was holding to much more traditional Judaic views, such as the need for circumcision, following Judaic traditional laws, etc.

I have limited time at the moment, but here are a few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeople ... postle.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/early-christianity

In any case, I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here, I am merely pointing out that it seems ludicrous on the surface at least to discount that such figures actually existed in antiquity. I make no claims about what these individuals did or claimed, only that it seems silly on the surface to doubt that they ever even existed.

[Frelga]

Thanks, Watcher, I was thinking of the wrong James, apparently.

I don't argue that Jesus never existed, though it does appear that he was little known during his life.

[yovargas]

Though ya'll can feel free to argue about it elsewhere, for the sake of this discussion, I'd like to assume for this discussion that Jesus existed, taught pretty much what is attributed to him, and really did inspire his disciples to go out and preach.

We could split that off into TE if people want.

[The Watcher]

Though ya'll can feel free to argue about it elsewhere, for the sake of this discussion, I'd like to assume for this discussion that Jesus existed, taught pretty much what is attributed to him, and really did inspire his disciples to go out and preach.

We could split that off into TE if people want.

Three minutes ago?

What sort of Doctor Who timeclock are you using, cuz I want one!!

[Túrin Turambar]

I’ve never seen any particularly good reason to assume Jesus never existed, any more than, say, Plato.