Evidence for Jesus

[_dartagnan]

Well I wouldn't put much stock into Geisler. His failed debate with Till in Columbus Georgia, was one of the greatest blow against Christian apologetics. There are better defenses out there to rely upon.

[_Chap]

I am a radical sceptic in religious matters nowadays, but it is precisely as a sceptic acquainted with the use of historical sources that I refuse to believe that the stories told about Jesus of Nazareth in early Christian texts (many of which contain miraculous elements in which I no longer feel able to believe) did not accrete round a real person who actually existed at pretty well the times and places indicated by the four gospels.

I find the alternatives (that ‘Jesus’ is simply Mithras or Attis in Jewish garb, and was never a real person at all) far less credible. For me the clincher is not the non-Christian references such as Tacitus, Pliny and perhaps Josephus, but the Pauline and other epistles: there is just not enough distance (between one and two decades) between them and the death of Jesus to allow for the creation of a completely mythical person as the starting point for the movement there evidenced. No-one can believe that Paul was not a real person, who actually wrote some of these letters. This is a man who tells us he has met (and quarrelled with) members of the group of twelve apostles who walked the streets of Jerusalem with Jesus. You just can’t get belief in an imaginary person going that quickly, though much to my regret I now believe that it is all too easy to get people to believe that a real (but dead) person wrought miracles during his life-time.

[_richardMdBorn]

richard,

This is certainly not an area that I have much experience with however, would it be possible for you to supply quotes from Josephus and Tacitus? If that's an unreasonable request, please disregard.

Jersey Girl

That's a reasonable request

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Tacitus The Annals Book 15:44

[_richardMdBorn]

Evolving

Righi also cited Pliny the Younger, who, in the early second century (112), reported that "Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god." Notice how late this reference is; and notice the absence of the name "Jesus." The passage, if accurate, could have referred to any of the other self-proclaimed "Christs" (messiahs) followed by Jews who thought they had found their anointed one. Pliny's account is not history, since he is only relaying what other people believed. No one doubts that Christianity was in existence by this time.

Well. Pliny the Younger is pretty tough medicine for folks who think that Jesus was not considered a God prior to Constantine. No Roman Emperor was needed to convince Christians in the early 2nd century of Jesus' divinity (or a 3rd century Arian controversy). The rest of this text doesn't make much sense. Is he arguing that Christians in 112 were following a self proclaimed messiah other than Jesus?

[_richardMdBorn]

Well I wouldn't put much stock into Geisler. His failed debate with Till in Columbus Georgia, was one of the greatest blow against Christian apologetics. There are better defenses out there to rely upon.

Kevin, I agree with you that Geisler is not always sound. However, I think that this argument is. More later (probably this weekend).

[_evolving]

Is he arguing that Christians in 112 were following a self proclaimed messiah other than Jesus?

no -- I think he is making the obvious point that - in 112 AD there were Christians - and they were meeting and singing songs to Christ - 82 odd years after the crucifixion - as evidence of a historical Jesus , it is like attending a LDS testimony meeting and using someones witness as evidence of a historical Nephi.

“Christians...asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”

[_Doctor Steuss]

I think one “evidence” that often gets overlooked (and one that Don Bradley pointed out to me many moons ago) is Paul’s reference to James (“the brother of Jesus”). Of course, this doesn’t stand if someone also takes the leap to “Paul didn’t exist either."

There’s also the potential reference by Suetonius (in Life of Claudius). Of course, this could possibly be just about anyone (not necessarily “Jesus”).

The search for a “historical Jesus” has slowly become an interesting topic to me. It seems that so much conjecture gets tossed around as one side seems to think that proof of an actual individual walking around and teaching in Israel circa 30 CE is proof that this same person was the son of G-d, and the Messiah. The other side seems to think that acknowledging a “historical Jesus” necessitates an acceptance of the legitimacy of Christianity and as such are adverse to anything that can potentially “prove” that the man commonly known as “Jesus the Christ” was indeed a real person (albeit perhaps far from how he has been mythologized).

From my rather pitiful studies of the Hellenistic world, even the various cults that were (continuously) springing up during that time (and areas) all seemed to be based on real people (or at least somewhat long-standing deities or a recognized national deity [for nation cults]). As such, I see no reason why there should be an aversion to the thought that the Christian cult was indeed based on a real person as well.

[_richardMdBorn]

Is he arguing that Christians in 112 were following a self proclaimed messiah other than Jesus?

no -- I think he is making the obvious point that - in 112 AD there were Christians - and they were meeting and singing songs to Christ - 82 odd years after the crucifixion - as evidence of a historical Jesus , it is like attending a LDS testimony meeting and using someones witness as evidence of a historical Nephi.

“Christians...asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”

Well, he appears to also be asserting that because the passage refers to Christ and not Jesus, that they might be worshiping someone other than Jesus of Nazareth. That is skepticism of a level to which a reasonable person would not go.

[_evolving]

Is he arguing that Christians in 112 were following a self proclaimed messiah other than Jesus?

no -- I think he is making the obvious point that - in 112 AD there were Christians - and they were meeting and singing songs to Christ - 82 odd years after the crucifixion - as evidence of a historical Jesus , it is like attending a LDS testimony meeting and using someones witness as evidence of a historical Nephi.

“Christians...asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”

Well, he appears to also be asserting that because the passage refers to Christ and not Jesus, that they might be worshiping someone other than Jesus of Nazareth. That is skepticism of a level to which a reasonable person would not go.

I happen to agree with you -- it is a large leap.. but there is a question none-the-less.. as I read Justin Martyr 1&2 and his debate with tryphos(sp) I was always struck with his(Justin's) descriptions of "other"messiahs and the pagans worship of the "sons of jupiter".. a belief he empathized with.. and after a further and deep look into the Greek and Roman mythologies, I have a hard time separating all the messiah-esq stories.. for me the similarities are too great to discount as just shadows of "the one, and only true messiah" and fit perfectly as a mythological way to teach everyone the greater mysteries of the kingdom of god within..

[_richardMdBorn]

1. The Gospels as evidence that Jesus lived? Is The Sorcerer's Stone, or The Goblet of Fire evidence Harry Potter lives?

Does Jenn Kamp Rowling think that she was writing non-fiction? Of course the gospels are evidence for the historicity of Jesus. They are 1st century documents written with extensive knowledge of Jewish customs and of pre 70AD Jerusalem. They are written in Greek but reflect some Aramaic background

If you agree with dating Acts circa 62, Luke circa 60 and Mark circa 55, how do you arrive at an invention of Jesus 25 years after his imaginary death. The gospels have the appearance of historical documents. A lot of real people and events are mentioned. They don’t start with “in a far country long ago…Homer was reciting tales about events hundreds of years ago. And where does Paul fit in to the story. An imaginary Jesus causes far more problems than it solves.