mountainman

To an historian it does matter whether Jesus actually
existed, and when that time was. Or alternatively, if
in fact Jesus did not exist, when was he fabricated.
There must be an actual ancient history which took
place. What is this ancient history?

History is sometimes detective work.
The answer is not immediately obvious.


This issue is irrelevant to the historian.

This issue has relevance to the theologians,
to the believers, to the christians, or to the
BC&H "Scholars" who are pushing a divine
wheelbarrow, etc, etc.

But the divinity of historical figures is not the
subject matter for the ancient historian (IMO).

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Alf

Of course Jesus existed! There are many people who are named Jesus. Usually pronounced "Heysouz" or some such. I think there are several soccer players who are named Jesus and I am sure that if you go to various places in US you can find drug dealers and gangsters named Jesus too.

Now, if you're talking about the guy described in the gospels it is a different matter.

If you talk about the guy described in the gospel after Matthews who was born around 4 BC he might have existed but probably wasn't born by a virgin. I don't think anyone performed a virginity test on her prior to the birth.

Or maybe you\re talking about the guy described in the gospel after Luke who was born around 6 AD?

Maybe you claim those two are one and the same person but how a person can be born both 4 BC and 6 AD is beyond me. You will have to explain that to me.

Alf

Dargo

I'm sure Jesus is real. I saw a documentary on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim called "Lucy Daughter of the Devil." Lucy's boyfriend was a DJ named Jesus who had miraculous powers of escaping dangerous situations and was rumored to be the son of god. He even had a sidekick named Judas. What more proof do you need?

Ulrich

My only mistake was in using the word "widely" in regard to both Josephus, and Tacitus. The passages in Josephus are widely considered to be interpolations, with the Testimonium Flavianum being almost undoubtedly interpolated. While most biblical scholars probably do not consider Tacitus to be interpolated, there is still some support for that viewpoint, as is evidenced in the following link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...in/jesus.shtml

Regardless, Tacitus never refers to Jesus Christ by name, and only mentions that there was a religious sect known as 'Chistians' that was persecuted by Nero. There were certainly other religious sects known as Christians during that time, including the followers of Simon Magus. As Josephus himself tells us, there was certainly no lack of individuals during that time claiming to be the messiah. Tacitus is also not a contemporary source, as it was written at least 70 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified.

WVIncagold

I think Jesus was Constantine's gardener. Every time he went into the royal gardens he thanked Jesus for the wonderful garden.

FinnHawk

Ok, what I meant was, that to most atheists (and those who doubt Jesus' divinity), even if he did exist, the important question is whether or not he was divine or just a regular person who was a leader and teacher with good ideas. I mean even if Christians can prove that he existed, that doesn't mean that he was divine and actually performed miracles. I wasn't answering from the perspective of a historian.

stuart shepherd

Jesus Christ does exist because I saw him.

Several years ago I was in the Motor Vehicles Office waiting for my new Driver's Licence to be printed.
The MV clerk called out "Jesus Christ".
A guy sitting on the bench by me said "Here"...walked up ...picked up his licence....and walked out.

Stuart Shepherd

makerowner

Did you get his autograph? Cause you could, like, sell it on eBay or something.

jjramsey

You are still mistakenly using the word "widely." Only one of the two passages regarding Jesus in Josephus' work are "widely considered to be interpolations."

Careful here. Saying that Tacitus never refers to Jesus Christ by name is a half-truth. He never calls him "Jesus," but does refer to Christus as the founder of the Christians.

Evidence?

Again, careful. One can infer from Josephus that there were several messianic claimants in Judea, but he avoids explicitly mentioning the idea of a Messiah.

And the lines of argument from that link, from Gordon Stein, aren't very good:

This is not a good line of argument. His need for a scapegoat is dependent on whether the public thinks he's guilty, not whether he really is guilty.

If Tacitus is merely getting his information about Christians "through the grapevine," so to speak, why should we expect either of those things? His next line of argument, "it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage," is a straight-up argument from silence. Nor does Gordon Stein ever seriously deal with the issue of why a Christian interpolator would write that his own faith was an "abominable superstition" or imply that Christians ratted out other Christians and got them arrested or killed.

aa5874

I think it is an error to reject information about any matter under investigation. If Jesus is described as both man and god, then it is prudent to use all of the information to assist in coming to a determination of the historicity of Jesus.

Homer's Achilles is easily rejected as a figure of history because he is presented as god and man, his divinity is relevant since it aids the historian in making a determination. If a person were to disregard the divinity of Achilles, then they may, even as a historian, come to the wrong conclusion.

It is extremely important to take into consideration the divinity of Apollo, Zeus, Hercules, the God of Moses, Allah or Vishnu, or else you may erroneously think that they were figures of history because some believers claim they were on earth feeding the poor or doing some missionary work.