Whoracle

I recently got into a religious discussion and I mentioned that there is little evidence for a real Jesus. The person I was talking with, who is studying to become a minister, obviously protested against this claim. Can someone please help me either back up my claim, or prove me wrong? Either way, I know he's going to bring it up the next time we see each other and I'd like to know.

Chris Weimer

This topic is better suited for BC&H. Sending it there now.

Chris

general_koffi

Really good arguments against an historical Jesus.

jjramsey

A counterpoint here: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp1.html

BTW, there is already another thread on the subject: Can the Jesus story have arisen without a real Jesus?

Toto

There is no contemporary non-Christian writer who mentions Jesus. The only evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus is based on inferences from other sources and later reports of such a person, none by eyewitnesses.

jjramsey

And the appropriate response to this is, "So what?" Show me an explanation for the evidence that we do have that is a cleaner fit than the explanation that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet about whom legends built up. Show me something better than baroque speculation and stretched parallels. Show me that you can explain an erroneous scripture like Matthew 2:23, "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean.'" Nazareth is not in the OT prophets, and what is there is a stretched fit to Nazareth, which implies that the author of the Gospel of Matthew is trying to stretch Scripture to fit inconvenient facts.

post tenebras lux

Is there any real evidence that Nazareth actually existed circa 1 BC/AD?

Julian

Define real evidence, i.e. what would you consider real...?

jjramsey

The archaeological evidence seems to go back as far as the Middle Bronze Age, though there may have been a refounding/expansion around the third century B.C.E., give or take a century. What I do notice is that outside of atheist circles, there is no mention of the issue of the non-existence of Nazareth, even though there is plenty of stuff on the problems with the Lukan census, geographical problems, and other contradictions (so it does not follow that this lack is faith-based). It looks like yet another canard that circulates around the Internet, much like the dubious comparisons of Jesus and Mithras that have circulated around.

post tenebras lux

Well, not just 'My church sez this ...' would be a good start.

Archaelogical digs, mentions in non-christian writings/reports/tax forms of the time.