Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I've read, the historicity of the nativity and obviously the miracles are not taken very seriously, but his name and execution tend to be considered historical.
From what I've read, the historicity of the nativity and obviously the miracles are not taken very seriously, but his name and execution tend to be considered historical.
Jesus is as historical as you want to make it. There is plenty of proof for and against Jesus and the New Testament. It is up to each and every individual to do their own research and make a PERSONAL decision on what they will believe or not.
As others have stated, my personal belief is Jesus Christ did, in fact, exist. He was a rabbi, with a great deal of charisma and intelligence. Because of this and the times, he was able to attract a following and spread the gospel as HE saw it.
Did he perform miracles? Probably. Not walking on water, etc, however for THE TIMES, his feats were probably seen as miracles. And these minor things, as we know, can evolve over time and be embellished to the point the actual event in no way matches what really occurred.
Well let's see. Every year before he got here is called BC(before Christ) & every year since has been called AD (anno domini= Year of our Lord). How important do you have to be to have your life be the distinguishing event between eras?
Well let's see. Every year before he got here is called BC(before Christ) & every year since has been called AD (anno domini= Year of our Lord). How important do you have to be to have your life be the distinguishing event between eras?
Yeah. That's the way I learned it, too.
But it has changed. Now, it's C.E. - Current Era; and B.C.E. - Before Current Era.
. There is plenty of proof for and against Jesus and the New Testament. .
The New Testament neither proves nor disproves a historical Jesus. I do not know what you have in mind with the concept that the New Testament offers proof against a historical Jesus.
The gospels represent 100 % of the evidence that Jesus was an actual figure. The Christian cult which arose in the First Century is evidence of the concept of a theology which had to have come from somewhere, but evidence of a historical Jesus only to the degree that these people certainly behaved as though they believed in a historical Jesus.
The earliest mentions of Jesus in sources outside of the New Testament are actually references to the Christian cult accompanied by explanations that this cult supposedly originated with an actual person.
Unless new evidence is unearthed we are left with unprovable assumptions only. We may point to the fact that the earliest writings associated with the cult all seem to be based on the idea that there was a historical Jesus. Or we could make something out of the fact that for all of Paul's voluminous writings on Christianity, he fails to provide any biographical details about Jesus at all.
The evidence, or more accurately the absence of evidence, does tell us that Jesus was not a big splash during his lifetime. John the Baptist was a major figure, enough so that he received a fairly lengthy treatment in the histories of Josephus which confirm most of the details about him presented in the gospels. Jesus did not make enough of an impact on the Romans for them to have included him in the history of that age.
Though by 79AD He seems to have been well enough known to be the subject of graffiti.
Iirc there's a drawing on a wall in Pompeii showing a man worshipping a figure with an ass's head - and hanging on a cross. The "artist" in question was clearly not pro-Christian, but he evidently didn't doubt the reality of the Crucifixion.
The evidence, or more accurately the absence of evidence, does tell us that Jesus was not a big splash during his lifetime. John the Baptist was a major figure, enough so that he received a fairly lengthy treatment in the histories of Josephus which confirm most of the details about him presented in the gospels. Jesus did not make enough of an impact on the Romans for them to have included him in the history of that age.
I would tend to agree with this. If what the bible says is to be believed, it was known since before birth that Jesus was the "son of God". Certainly with that pedigree there would be more documented about his childhood. If truly God in the flesh, an event that (according to the bible) only happens twice before the end of the world, he certainly would have used his entire life doing God's work, not wasted time as a carpenter.
As a child I bought into this fairytale. As an adult I questioned it, going to many churches and asking many pastors, preachers, even Doctors of Theology and the "faith" argument only gets you so far.
I'm not saying that this person doesn't do good, and preach good. There are good lessons to be learned from the writings about Jesus, however I think that some of the writings were pumped up. It's no different than the current group of "as seen on TV" healers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.