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.
As an aside, I always found it interesting that until 1961 there was no evidence that Pontius Pilate existed, the Roman who condemns Jesus and then "washes his hands of it", giving us a catchphrase that lasted two millennia. Then a stone was found bearing his name during an excavation of one of Herod's temples on the Israeli coast.
It's not likely that a similar concrete piece of evidence would be found for Jesus, given that he had no political title. I believe he existed, but I don't believe there is any hard evidence by which one could prove it.
As an aside, I always found it interesting that until 1961 there was no evidence that Pontius Pilate existed, the Roman who condemns Jesus and then "washes his hands of it", giving us a catchphrase that lasted two millennia. Then a stone was found bearing his name during an excavation of one of Herod's temples on the Israeli coast.
It's not likely that a similar concrete piece of evidence would be found for Jesus, given that he had no political title. I believe he existed, but I don't believe there is any hard evidence by which one could prove it.
There was evidence before the Pilate Stone. He was mentioned in Jospehus and referenced by Tacitus, both 1st Century writers/historians. And of course the gospels are also evidence. The Pilate Stone is the first and only physical evidence we have.
There was evidence before the Pilate Stone. He was mentioned in Jospehus and referenced by Tacitus, both 1st Century writers/historians. And of course the gospels are also evidence. The Pilate Stone is the first and only physical evidence we have.
That was what I meant. Physical evidence. Thought that was clear, sorry.
We only have 1 source about Jesus' existence, and that is the bible.
The bible isn't exactly known for being a very accurate source, and it has been rewritten and translated for thousands of years.
Unless we have a physical evidence, we cannot say that Jesus in fact did exist.
From what I heard, Josephus' reference is entirely missing from one manuscript, and in the same manuscript dug up from a different time period, was included. Which one shall we take? Also, I attended some lecture that stated another writing from Josephus contained an out and out lie about another subject. This makes any information from that source highly questionable.
Manuscripts were copied in those days. Communications were slow over distances. Manuscripts were found with differences that the copier inserted to clarify points, etc. It is thought that some of the gospels can very well be copies, written and rewritten over differing time periods and extracted from one, missing, document.
From what I heard, Josephus' reference is entirely missing from one manuscript, and in the same manuscript dug up from a different time period, was included. Which one shall we take? Also, I attended some lecture that stated another writing from Josephus contained an out and out lie about another subject. This makes any information from that source highly questionable.
Manuscripts were copied in those days. Communications were slow over distances. Manuscripts were found with differences that the copier inserted to clarify points, etc. It is thought that some of the gospels can very well be copies, written and rewritten over differing time periods and extracted from one, missing, document.
Josephus was a Jew who was among the high ranking leaders of the Jewish Revolt in 66 CE, rising to the command of the Galilean force. When the Romans crushed the rebellion, Josephus was one of forty of the surviving fighters who took refuge in a cave. Jospehus made a speech to the others saying that it was better to die than to live under the Roman's thumb and suggested a mutual suicide pact. The others agreed and Josephus arranged a rigged lottery so that they would kill one another with Josephus being the last standing, he would then take his own life.
Instead, after everyone else was dead, Josephus made his way to the Roman camp and surrendered himself, offering his services to the Romans. He must have been some slick talker because not only was he spared, but three years later he was serving as the liason between the Roman forces and the defenders of beseiged Jerusalem. According to Jospehus, his survival was the product of clever flattery. Vespasian was the commander of the Roman Legions in Palestine and Josephus predicted to him that in the near future, he would become Emperor of Rome, the next Caesar. Jospehus figured that he had nothing to lose. If Vespasian never rose to the top of the Empire, then it was just some silly prediction by a Jewish madman. If however Vespasian did become emperor, then Jospehus would look like a gifted seer.
Of course Vespasian did become Caesar and Jospehus became his friend and ally, being given Roman citizenship as his reward. Josephus devoted the rest of his life to promoting a doctrine which attempted reconciling Hebrew law with Roman rule, "Hellenistic Judaism"....a goal of Rome's, not Judea.
So, we have a man who was unquestionably duplicitous, who had placed himself above the cause he had represented and changed sides when the war went against the Jews. He rose in Roman society by his own cleverness and the employment of flattery. The safe conclusions are: A) Josephus was a very smart fellow, and B) Josephus was not someone in whom to place your trust.
Josephus' two great books on the history of Palestine in the 1st Century were written for a Roman audience.
The consequence has been historians approaching Josephus' works with great suspicion, he was a self serving man and was kissing up to his Roman lords, so what he wrote is viewed in the manner one might approach "The History of the American Revolution", by Benedict Arnold.
Further, there are the chain of custody problems....we do not know who had their hands on the original manuscripts before they took on the surviving forms we have today. Of the two references to Jesus, one seems to come with a declaration by Josephus that he fully accepts Jesus as the son of god and savior of the world. That is so out of character and inconsistent with everything else found in the books, that all scholars recognize it as some ex post facto Church influenced addition.
No one looks to Josephus as either confirmation or disconfirmation of a historical Jesus. His value is in providing the historical background to the years in which Jesus lived. Josephus' books and the gospels are in harmony on a large number of reported facts, so that suggests that portions of both are valid, but both still must be approached with great care and a measure of skepticism.
It may be hard to believe, but Josephus' books are actually fun reads. He is completely candid about his betrayal of the Jews (he in fact seems quite proud of his survivor instincts) and includes episodes which are hardly flattering to him, such as his approaching the walls of Jerusalem to try and arrange a negotiation, and instead being bombarded with animal dung.
Besides what's written in the Holy Bible and the Holy Qu'ran, I'm not sure of any other historical texts that mention Jesus. However, it's an interesting theory that Jesus could have actually been a collection of people or an ideal person who religious people can look up to as a role model for how they should live their lives.
Besides what's written in the Holy Bible and the Holy Qu'ran, I'm not sure of any other historical texts that mention Jesus. However, it's an interesting theory that Jesus could have actually been a collection of people or an ideal person who religious people can look up to as a role model for how they should live their lives.
What I find interesting is how Jesus was supposed born during Herod yet also during Quirinius, when Herod died 10 yrs before Quirinius took post.
Do you suppose it's possible that there was more than 1 Herod?
There were a lot of Herods. If I recall correctly, Herod the Great named all of his sons Herod. Sort of like George Foreman.
Not sure which one was supposed to have been the one on the throne at the time of the nativity, though. Doesn't matter anyway, since no one can pinpoint the exact year Jesus was born.
maybe Jesus was a common name for a guru back then ...maybe his real name was lost so they made one up.. or they added this guy who wandered around to make the bible interesting and more attractive to people...
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.
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.
