I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts at the feet of professors (all at mainstream, world-renowned universities; NOT some wacky “Bible colleges”) who themselves had studied at the feet of professors before them – all of whom have been subject to the review process by scholars in corresponding fields who are not themselves Christian, or even necessarily people of faith, but none of whom across centuries of scholarship have managed to distil the existence of Jesus down to the admirably simple formulae conjured up by the good folk of STW.

If only I – and all of them – had have had access to internet fora and social media years ago, we could have saved ourselves so much time.

Thanks, though. Better late than never.

SaxonRider, PhD, LicDD, FRHistS

Doesn’t make you right

Poah PhD (actual science doctorate)

I don’t believe he was divine though.

But looking at those portraits of him he was quite good looking.

Chevy chase has it.
The thread is actually asking did Jesus Christ exist not whether a bloke called Jesus existed.
Jesus Christ is a fictional character based on a real man called Jesus.
We all agree pon that historical fact.

Well we’re nit picking, but the man was known as Christ regardless of his actual divinity.

Perhaps it was Chris and it’s been misinterpreted all these years.

Of all your self satisfied douchbaggery Chevy this is the bit I think is the daftest:

It’s a clear appeal to authority – hence the “here’s my PhD’s, not from *yadda* religious groups but respected serious people” yadda.

It makes no sense. We’re talking about a historical topic here. Humanity learns about history through the process of historical study and research. So someone who has done more research on a particular topic must surely therefore know more than someone who has done less (or none), this is surely obvious. However you dismiss this as a logical fallacy. So you are in effect saying that regardless of how much knowledge someone has on a topic, their opinion can have no more weight than anyone else.

This is bananas, is it not? If no-one can have any credentials then why should we listen to anyone at all? Why should we listen to you? Why are you bothering to contribute to the thread?

Actually, I think I know why 😉

I’d just like to point out that I have a phd in cow shit!!

SR what is the contemporaneous evidence for the existence of the historical figure of Jesus?

Looking forward to the definitive proof from SR.

As Saxonrider said

few, if any, serious scholars, and the manuscript evidence is as strongly in favour of a positive conclusion regarding the existence of the person Jesus as it is in favour of pretty much any commonly accepted figure from antiquity. Whether we accept the religious interpretation of him is an entirely different issue.

MY understanding is the consensus now is probably born around 4 BC and spent most of his life in what is now Lebanon – and that some / many of the tales attributed to him may have been other jewish mystics
Also the quality of the evidence is not great

@molgrips

Actually, I think I know why

Well you think wrong. I linked to an explanation to what an appeal to authority is and you clealy didn’t read or understand it, as demonstrated by the rest of your post.

“PhD” does not equal “right”. PhD’s disagree within the same field and they can’t sit there screaming “I’m a doctor…No *I’m* a doctor” at each other.

PhD is an indication of level of achievement, not level of correctness. Only evidence is that – and in a non-scientific, theological field the level of evidence generally presents to the level of homeopathy at best.

Experts are absolutely to be respected (in science fields especially) – but they absolutely *must* bring evidence to the table, not just say “I have a PhD you know”…

I am not promising definitive proof. As far as the historical existence of Jesus goes, I am saying that we have the same levels of textual evidence for him as we do for most historical figures. So, for example, quite apart from the theological/mythological content of the gospels (and yes, you can parse out that content in order to locate simple, factual history), what is found there counts as evidence to scholars.

But perhaps more important in terms of argument for his actual existence is the fact that he is mentioned by Josephus (a first century Jewish historian) and, later, by both Pliny and Tacitus (Roman politicians).

In the end, this is exactly the same type of evidence we have for any historical figure in antiquity. And as I continue to maintain, that there was indeed a figure called Jesus who made it onto people’s radar in the early first century is a beyond most reasonable doubt. Few scholars of any faith disagree. That is not a “appeal to authority”. It matters. A bit like climate science. 😉

The question is whether or not one believes he had any significance beyond being a political radical or a moral teacher or whatever. And that, I completely accept, is entirely up to one’s interpretation and faith position.

I have to say, Chevy, you don’t seem to know how the academy works. For a few individual scholars to get away with bad or incorrect scholarship is certainly possible. In fact, it is possible in any field, including the sciences. (There is young earth creationist with a doctorate from Oxford!)

But for the vast majority of scholars in a given field to get away with bad or incorrect scholarship over a prolonged period of time would require a conspiracy far in excess of killing Kennedy and faking the moon landings.

exsee wrote ‘….We all agree pon that historical fact’.
No, we don’t all agree – read the thread.
Who appointed you to be spokesperson?

Seems to me that quite a few people now have asserted the existence of “overwhelming evidence” over the last couple of pages, but no-one has actually provided any yet. Whilst I have little reason to disbelieve that it exists aside from wilful obstinance, I’d rather like to see it for myself.

This is a fascinating discussion. I wish people could be a bit nicer to each other while they were having it.

@SaxonRider

we have the same levels of textual evidence for him as we do for most historical figures.

Is there the same amount of evidence for Jesus as there is for eg Herod?

Who appointed you to be spokesperson?

God?

Cougar sed> Seems to me that quite a few people now have asserted the existence of “overwhelming evidence” over the last couple of pages, but no-one has actually provided any yet.

See below overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ is indeed a fictional character, in this instance as portrayed in a recent South Park episode:

Pliny and Tacitus (Roman politicians).

My bold addition- I’m going back over 40 years so memory may be fallible. I studied some of Plinys writings for Latin- our teacher (a Dr no less as we’re brandishing around PhDs) said that a lot of the writings about JC & his followers were warning of them as a dangerous cult.

Obviously those in charge were trying to protect the status Quo.

I may be wrong but I have the impression that a lot of Roman record was less about JC existence rather than about a group that followed his doctrine.

I think around the time of JC there were various Jewish rebels trying to overthrow the evil Roman Empire, so they were wary of any challenge.

My bold addition- I’m going back over 40 years so memory may be fallible. I studied some of Plinys writings for Latin- our teacher (a Dr no less as we’re brandishing around PhDs) said that a lot of the writings about JC & his followers were warning of them as a dangerous cult.

This is correct, especially of Tacitus.

Is there the same amount of evidence for Jesus as there is for eg Herod?

Precisely. No one really doubts he existed, yet the evidence we have includes the gospels, Josephus, and certain chronicles (a common historical genre in antiquity and late antiquity).

Another historical example would be Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Do we believe they happened? I would expect so, unless we want to doubt all history prior to, say, the early middle ages. Yet the only evidence we have for these tales of Caesar’s great victories is, well, Caesar. And his little book called “Gallic Wars”. Now, I don’t doubt that they happened. But I expect there were embellishments and a perspective that set Caesar himself in a positive light. A historians, however, we accept that and mentally pare the story down to something resembling the facts.

With room for interpretation, then, we have a core historical idea (Caesar’s Gallic Wars, or Jesus, son of Joseph, as some sort of religious figure) which few dispute. So I repeat that “we have at least as much evidence for the historical reality of a man called Jesus who was born around 4 BC, and who came to take on some sort of religious significance for people, as we do for many of the figures and events we associate with antiquity”. Just because many folk do not accept that Jesus was a divine figure of any sort does not mean that the historical criteria applied to his life is not the same as that applied to other people and events of the same period and prior.

How can you confidently separate real from not when it comes to a mythical, for want of a better word, figure?

Good question. But simply on the same basis that any historian might look at the Gallic Wars and sift the text in order to separate out the imperial propaganda from the actual, military fact. That’s basic historiography.

But if as people do they truely believe something is real they will write about it as such and then those looking at it now will be coloured by their views whatever they are a definitive answer seems impossible to come up with.

So do we have a decision yet? I’m hoping to get out for a ride, but I don’t want to miss out on finding out the answer.

No hard evidence for Herod either !! 😂

@anagallis_arvensis

You are right. But…

If we take “Event A” as an historical given, much like “World War II started” or “9/11 happened”, it represents a straightforward empirical fact. We may now elaborate upon it and interpret it how we wish, but the event itself remains.

It doesn’t matter if, from the outset, an interpretive spin was placed on “Event A”. In this respect, I think that 9/11 is an excellent analogy. One significant interpretation placed on it is that it was a terrorist attack that signalled the reality of an existential threat on the doorstep of Western civilisation. This was certainly the neo-con spin. Now I, and probably many on here, don’t really buy that; but really, only time will tell what it truly was. The fact remains, however, that some planes hit some buildings at the turn of the century in an act of remarkable violence.

Will STW forumites in oxygen suits be debating this fact a few hundred years from now, when the skyline of New York is only a distant memory? Will they just stick to the problematic of interpretation? Or will they doubt the event itself? After all, historiographical criteria will have developed, and they won’t have the same access to the original event as it was contaminated with interpretation from the beginning.

So, on the basis that doubt can be applied to pretty much anything that happened prior to our customary recording devices (cameras; mass media), we can probably trust nothing. On the basis that we have customarily accepted core facts on the basis of the manuscript evidence and cross-referencing, we can probably continue to trust those core facts.

No hard evidence for Herod either !! 😂

In which case, we have no hard evidence for anything before the camera. Maybe the printing press. But if you say Herod, you might as well keep going.

quite a few people now have asserted the existence of “overwhelming evidence” over the last couple of pages, but no-one has actually provided any yet.

There isn’t a single silver bullet of evidence, just an accumulation from multiple different sources. Just like a court case you put them all together and form a conclusion one waybor the other. Overwhelmingly the evidence points to his existence as a historical character.
The evidence as it exists can’t simply be put down on a forum post. If your genuinely interested you can use the Wiki link I posted as a start for your own research.

‘Jesus Christ’ is definitely fictional. It was just that Joseph was the first carpenter to shout it when he ****ted his thumb with the hammer…

You are right. But…

Interesting discussion cant reply just now or read your posts but will look later!

The bit the church really got wrong was fixing the date for his birth when no one knew him from Adam compared to his death which is celebrated at some point over a 6 week period. If some one noted his birth you would have thought something as unique as a resurrection would be note worthy enough for the date to be pinned down

In which case, we have no hard evidence for anything before the camera. Maybe the printing press. But if you say Herod, you might as well keep going.

Yep 🤨

If some one noted his birth you would have thought something as unique as a resurrection would be note worthy enough for the date to be pinned down

I think it is pinned down in the Jewish calendar, no?

Re fixing the date for his birth – you have to remember that the religion was spread around the middle East and the world via missionaries or evangelists, and they had to persuade people to as door their position. So sure, they piggy backed existing celebrations, but that doesn’t necessarily matter much does it? If you want people to accept Jesus’s radical message it doesn’t really matter when his actual birthday was. Does it really matter when anyone’s birthday is?

I don’t believe he was divine though.

But looking at those portraits of him he was quite good looking.

Does he has to be divine to convince? Like turning rocks into gold nuggets etc?
Why do people always look for divination?
Divine is a just a side show and once the side show is exhausted what else?
If people seek for a divine person aren’t they merely looking for the material (wealth) self interest?
What is the core of his teaching?
As a matter of fact what is/are the core of all religious teachings?

In which case, we have no hard evidence for anything before the camera. Maybe the printing press. But if you say Herod, you might as well keep going.

This being the case, why are we concluding “it must be true because we believe everything else” rather than saying “we don’t really know much about that time period with any certainty”?

Will STW forumites in oxygen suits be debating this fact a few hundred years from now, when the skyline of New York is only a distant memory? Will they just stick to the problematic of interpretation? Or will they doubt the event itself?

I don’t really think it’s directly comparable. Today, the vast majority of the developed world is literate and – thanks to the proliferation of the Internet – information is shared widely, rapidly and primarily in English. Multiple sources can be cross-referenced to build a clearer picture. Whilst I agree that bias in reporting is problematic, those biases are well known and can be taken into account.

Compare with Jesus’ time, this is a lot more difficult. Few people wrote, and fewer still in a manner which is still extant a couple of millennia later. I can’t exactly hop back and see if Jesus had a Twitter account. Everything we have written about Jesus today was written posthumously, and how long would it take for accounts to become unreliable in a barely-literate world?

As far as I can tell, it does indeed seem highly likely that Jesus the person existed. Beyond that though, I don’t see how we can rely on much being historically accurate with any degree of certainty. Ie, are people actually writing about Jesus the man or Jesus the myth? Widespread legends can be consistent without necessarily being historically accurate.

A very good question Chew.

A lot of what Jesus said or is alleged to have said makes great sense to us, but perhaps (or perhaps not) because we live in a country steeped in his teachings for 1500 years. But did people really worship him as divine just because they wanted to go to heaven? That is a fairly popular theme in the gospels isn’t it?

As a matter of fact what is/are the core of all religious teachings?

Be excellent to each other?

Ooops

A lot of what Jesus said or is alleged to have said makes great sense to us, but perhaps (or perhaps not) because we live in a country steeped in his teachings for 1500 years.

The basic is the same (slight variations) and transcends through time so time has no bearing for teaching (most). They (religions) might disagree with each other in the way to progress our thoughts but if you look deeper they are almost saying the same thing (for their own people or whoever they are explaining to). For example, be kind to each other, avoid greed, being selfless and be respectful etc.

But did people really worship him as divine just because they wanted to go to heaven?

Yes, because people (not all) have put their self interest first i.e. I go to heaven because I worship while you go to hell because you don’t worship, which is the wrong intention. However, there are some who worship for the right intention and back up with right actions.

That is one reason why some religions forbid the worshipping of “idols” not because it is wrong but because the focus of the teaching could be distracted. For example, even Buddha told his disciples Not to worship him but to remember his teaching well but people being people in their remembrance of Buddha decided to create an “image” of the Buddha (blame the Romans LOL!). Buddha only allowed stupa to be erected in remembrance of him.

That is a fairly popular theme in the gospels isn’t it?

Yes, because the reason is rather than loosing the flock worshipping is the next best action people can have to maintain some form of focus. This is to avoid losing the flock altogether.

Problem is that people being people start to focus on self interest and in the process starts to “condemn” other religion(s).

Be excellent to each other?

How? Define excellence? Someone gives you plenty of cash is excellent or someone doing the right thing is excellent?

P/s: I found some of the religious practices rather similar (strictness in practice i.e. with guide for daily routines) when I spoke to my Jewish and Muslim friends. Religious people in the past were normally perceived by the people as the people with knowledge/wisdom/even doctor etc. A bit like modern day scholars/scientists/doctors etc (real ones not those who pretend to be one).

I have recently listened to same “talks” about pluralism from some religions fractions where they objected go it because in fear of confusing or diluting the teaching. Pluralism here does not related to race but to belief/ideology and hence they become very protected of defending their position. This is also the reason why you see conflict all over the world.

While listening to the “talks” they also mention that it is wrong to condemn other religion regardless. But this particular point is sideline by many so called religious “leaders” for their own self glorify interest.