Was Jesus a real person? (greatest, influences, economic, peasants)

[cowdog]

Hey wait a minute! We don't have to fight here. This has already been done for us.

Here is Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (pros and cons)

And if someone wants more there is the Google search for it.

Only if someone wants to go through all that and find the points to fight about should we fight about them.

Ah, now we all can be friends again! So who is cooking supper?

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by RememberMee

you won't find a shred of evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of New Testament and equally "trustworthy" apologetic muddlings.

Your statement is false - and has already been discussed (and I must say, if you read some of the responses it would have kept you from posting such an embarassingly inaccurate statement). From the above link by cowdog, documented histories written in recent enough of a time from the death of Jesus as to almost be a current event:

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44, in the context of the persecution of Christians and the Great Fire of Rome.[83][84][85]
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[86][87][88][89][90][91][92] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[17]

-and-

The writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[62][63] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.[62][64]

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by cowdog

Yes, maybe they will not see you defeated yourself in one sentence. I agree that some will pass it over. I bet after your post someone might even claim we can't find a shred of evidence for Jesus!

:

I think I understand the problem now. You not only failed to comprehend the obvious meaning of my statement about Pilate, you also have failed to comprehend that my posts have all been leaning toward the idea that there was a historical figure named Jesus.

You are akin to a football player doing a sack dance after knocking down one of his own teammates.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Your statement is false - and has already been discussed (and I must say, if you read some of the responses it would have kept you from posting such an embarassingly inaccurate statement). From the above link by cowdog, documented histories written in recent enough of a time from the death of Jesus as to almost be a current event:

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44, in the context of the persecution of Christians and the Great Fire of Rome.[83][84][85]
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[86][87][88][89][90][91][92] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[17]

-and-

The writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[62][63] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.[62][64]

Actually the Roman sources provide only confirmation that there were cults in the Roman empire devoted to a series of claims about a prophet in Judea called Jesus. Any information Tacitus would have had about the crucifixion would have come from the things being said by the cult members. The Roman sources are all commenting on the phenomena of the Christian cults, not on the authenticity of their claims. They neither confirm nor disconfirm an actual historical figure.

We can only deal in probabilities with this question. We have the evidence provided by the members of the cult, which of course must be viewed as prejudicial, and some comments by Roman sources indicating awareness of the cults and awareness of the claims regarding the founding of the cults.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Actually the Roman sources provide only confirmation that there were cults in the Roman empire devoted to a series of claims about a prophet in Judea called Jesus. Any information Tacitus would have had about the crucifixion would have come from the things being said by the cult members. The Roman sources are all commenting on the phenomena of the Christian cults, not on the authenticity of their claims. They neither confirm nor disconfirm an actual historical figure.

We can only deal in probabilities with this question. We have the evidence provided by the members of the cult, which of course must be viewed as prejudicial, and some comments by Roman sources indicating awareness of the cults and awareness of the claims regarding the founding of the cults.

Yes but one must use common sense, as a Roman historian I assume he wrote about this cult from a prespective of negativity and not total objectivity. In other words if he felt that this Jesus was a fictional character created by fanatical cult members, he would have mentioned it. But he mentions Jesus factually, mentions Pilate ("one of our procurators"), and mentions his crucifixion. But also, the very existence of a cult around a person that existed and lived only a generation previous is proof enough, it's recent enough for first or second hand accounts. This isn't a cult centered around Moses or Abraham, people that may or may not have existed 1,000 years previous to the Roman Empire, and would have been easy to create as an offshoot to Judism, but about a relatively contemporary figure. Tacitus realized that.

There is a school of thought however that Tacitus did not obtain his information from some christians running around, but from actual Roman official documents that have since been lost to time (he does not reveal his source). The fact that he refers to Pilate as "one of our procurators" is telling. As we all know what historians do best is copy from other sources. The New Testemant was of course not around to use as a source.

[Grandstander]

[quote=Dd714;25452563]

Yes but one must use common sense, as a Roman historian I assume he wrote about this cult from a prespective of negativity and not total objectivity. In other words if he felt that this Jesus was a fictional character created by fanatical cult members, he would have mentioned it.

That is a guess on your part. That he would or would not feel obligated to add a personal opinion regarding the authenticity of the cult's origins, is unknown to us.

But he mentions Jesus factually, mentions Pilate ("one of our procurators"), and mentions his crucifixion. But also, the very existence of a cult around a person that existed and lived only a generation previous is proof enough, it's recent enough for first or second hand accounts.

The legends of Robin Hood enjoy the same sort of time lapse between the supposed reality and their appearances in the literature of the day, is that "proof enough" that there was an actual single individual called Robin Hood who lived in Sherwood Forrest and devoted his life to vexing the Norman rulers?

This isn't a cult centered around Moses or Abraham, people that may or may not have existed 1,000 years previous to the Roman Empire, and would have been easy to create as an offshoot to Judism, but about a relatively contemporary figure. Tacitus realized that.

Really? And your evidence for this realization on the part of Tacitus is....?

There is a school of thought however that Tacitus did not obtain his information from some christians running around, but from actual Roman official documents that have since been lost to time (he does not reveal his source).

Are there members of this "school of thought" outside yourself? Could you identify some of them and provide a link to any of their arguments or evidence in this matter?


In the absense of new evidence, we are all left guessing. We have evidence that there was a true historical Jesus, but the evidence suffers for it all coming from members of a cult devoted to the figure. We have mentions of the cult in other sources, along with mentions of what the cult was about and around whom it had grown, but these mentions do not form any sort of proof of anything beyond that the cults existed.

Favoring our accepting the idea of a historical Jesus is the behavior of the apostles who certainly appeared to believe in an actual historical individual, and the failure of any counter evidence to ever appear. No one has yet come up with any sort of documentation supporting the idea of a conspiracy to invent a mythological Jesus.

And there we stand.....a question of probabilities.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

And there we stand.....a question of probabilities.

It's a process of logical deduction, as again then we are stuck with the debate of "there are no eyewitness account". For the rest, I have to embarassingly admit that the above information was paraprashed from the Wikipedia source referenced earlier (and no doubt Wikipedia is not always accurate) and included my own opinionated conclusions.

Regarding obligation to reveal personal opinion, purely human nature opinion based on this quote:
"Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator and his writings shows no sympathy towards Christians.[86][93][94][95][96] Andreas Köstenberger and separately Robert E. Van Voorst state that the tone of the passage towards Christians is far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe "

Regarding school of thought on that he obtained information from roman official documents:
"Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case...[discussion on the use of Prefect vs Procurator]... Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.[104]"

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Regarding school of thought on that he obtained information from roman official documents:
"Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case...[discussion on the use of Prefect vs Procurator]... Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.[104]"

Okay, but he may have had access to sources which perhaps existed.....and these sources might have had information on the founding of the cult...

Not something I would take to a jury.

[Oleg Bach]

The was a small stone box that is used to store bones of the dead...It was found about 8 years ago...on it was the inscription....James the brother of Jesus.......They are talking about James the Just...who was in charge of the early movement after his brother Jesus the Christ was tortured and executed. It was found to be the real thing.....They myth generated was by others much later on who created smoke and mirror history...tainting and confusing the memory of Christ....I would stake my life on the fact that Jesus was a man who existed...Maybe not as religion portrays....but then again Christianity was never a religion- but a state of mind...Budda was real- as was Mohamed as are you.

[Oleg Bach]

Originally Posted by cowdog

Hey wait a minute! We don't have to fight here. This has already been done for us.

Here is Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (pros and cons)

And if someone wants more there is the Google search for it.

Only if someone wants to go through all that and find the points to fight about should we fight about them.

Ah, now we all can be friends again! So who is cooking supper?

MOHAMED was born about 300 years after Jesus- Jesus is mentioned in the Koran....why?