Evidence for Jesus

[_dartagnan]

We know about Alexander the Great for several reasons. As the link shows, “He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and was undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.”

That doesn't even begin to explain how we know he existed. Had you bothered to read the article you linked us to, you would see that none of historic sources date back to the time of Alexander:

The primary sources, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and some letter-fragments of dubious authenticity...The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin

Dubious authenticity, lost texts... that sounds a lot like your argument about how the Bible cannot be used as evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Of those five extant accounts, the earliest was written five centuries after Alexander died. By contrast, the earliest text referencing Jesus was written only a few decades after his death. Five centuries after the death of Jesus, there were far more records providing an account of his existence than there were for Alexander. So what standard do you invoke to reject the historicity of Jesus?

Coins were created with his image at the time of his power and extended reach.

So you think Zeus was a real person?

[_The Nehor]

You should also note JAK that in the time period under discussion Christians had no political power. In fact, all the powers that be (Rome in the Empire and the Jews in Israel) wanted the whole Jesus thing to go away. If Jesus was not real, wouldn't the Jews have tried to show that he didn't exist rather than claiming he was the son of a Roman soldier and a whore who learned conjuring tricks in Egypt?

Even if they were able to bury the accounts later we would almost certainly have an inkling in early Christian apologetics. A lot of what we know about gnosticism (which the Christians tried to stomp out) comes from early Church Fathers debating them. The record is silent. Only in the last few centuries have people started doubting whether the man lived. The idea that we, who are farther removed from the events in question and have less data (writings, eyewitnesses, and accounts of his life) available then they did, should decide that they were all wrong on no evidence whatsoever flies in the face of all rules of evidence.

[_Jersey Girl]

You should also note JAK that in the time period under discussion Christians had no political power. In fact, all the powers that be (Rome in the Empire and the Jews in Israel) wanted the whole Jesus thing to go away. If Jesus was not real, wouldn't the Jews have tried to show that he didn't exist rather than claiming he was the son of a Roman soldier and a whore who learned conjuring tricks in Egypt?

Even if they were able to bury the accounts later we would almost certainly have an inkling in early Christian apologetics. A lot of what we know about gnosticism (which the Christians tried to stomp out) comes from early Church Fathers debating them. The record is silent. Only in the last few centuries have people started doubting whether the man lived. The idea that we, who are farther removed from the events in question and have less data (writings, eyewitnesses, and accounts of his life) available then they did, should decide that they were all wrong on no evidence whatsoever flies in the face of all rules of evidence.

If the record is silent, how do you know any of the above? Clarify? On what is the record silent?

[_GoodK]

Dubious authenticity, lost texts... that sounds a lot like your argument about how the Bible cannot be used as evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past?
Well, the best kind of evidence, of course, consists of contemporary accounts; people who were
close to the time of the events themselves. Ultimately, if you don’t have a source that goes back to the time period itself, then you don’t have a reliable source.

If in fact there are no sources from the time period of Alexander the Great I am perfectly Ok saying there is no evidence Alexander the Great ever lived. That is fair. Is that supposed to somehow strengthen the case for Jesus?

[_dartagnan]

If in fact there are no sources from the time period of Alexander the Great I am perfectly Ok saying there is no evidence Alexander the Great ever lived. That is fair. Is that supposed to somehow strengthen the case for Jesus?

No, it just goes to show that atheists who reject the historicity of Jesus, are not operating by any established standard for historicity. It is just a test they invent for their own purposes. Jak has presented several attempts to debunk the existence of Jesus by holding him to tests that he would never hold other historic figures. This reveals an agenda. He keeps running into brick walls because he is relying on things he picks up from atheist blogs; things he isn't prepared to substantiate. First he denied any texts speaking of Jesus existed within a thirty year period after his death. This was shown to be false by Richard. Now he says coinage will work as good evidence.

Alexander the Great is accepted by historians as a real person. The same is true for Jesus. Historians accept his existence because there is historical evidence.

Atheists who argue otherwise, do so with little or no understanding about what constitutes history or evidence. Nehor brought up an excellent point too. There were plenty attempts to debunk Christianity in the early years, but no one thought to argue Jesus never really existed. It seems this would have been an easy task back then, if it were true.

[_The Nehor]

You should also note JAK that in the time period under discussion Christians had no political power. In fact, all the powers that be (Rome in the Empire and the Jews in Israel) wanted the whole Jesus thing to go away. If Jesus was not real, wouldn't the Jews have tried to show that he didn't exist rather than claiming he was the son of a Roman soldier and a whore who learned conjuring tricks in Egypt?

Even if they were able to bury the accounts later we would almost certainly have an inkling in early Christian apologetics. A lot of what we know about gnosticism (which the Christians tried to stomp out) comes from early Church Fathers debating them. The record is silent. Only in the last few centuries have people started doubting whether the man lived. The idea that we, who are farther removed from the events in question and have less data (writings, eyewitnesses, and accounts of his life) available then they did, should decide that they were all wrong on no evidence whatsoever flies in the face of all rules of evidence.

If the record is silent, how do you know any of the above? Clarify? On what is the record silent?

I meant the record is silent on claims that Jesus was a made-up figure and that there were enough people who would have preferred him to be so that if it were true someone would have said something. The Christians were already telling a story about a triumphal entry into Jerusalem 30-40 years after it happened. There were enough people who would have still been alive that surely someone would have said something.

[_GoodK]

Alexander the Great is accepted by historians as a real person. The same is true for Jesus. Historians accept his existence because there is historical evidence.

I don't believe this is a correct statement. Certainly some historians accept Jesus, but there are others who do not, precisely because there is no historical evidence.
Alexander the Great, and what we know about him, is more likely to have happened than what we are told about Jesus. This is why Alexander is universally accepted by historians as a real person, while Jesus is not.

[_JAK]

Alexander the Great is accepted by historians as a real person. The same is true for Jesus. Historians accept his existence because there is historical evidence.

I don't believe this is a correct statement. Certainly some historians accept Jesus, but there are others who do not, precisely because there is no historical evidence.
Alexander the Great, and what we know about him, is more likely to have happened than what we are told about Jesus. This is why Alexander is universally accepted by historians as a real person, while Jesus is not.

GoodK,

There are many web sources for Alexander the Great, and there are book publications.

Your statement, GoodK, is correct in analysis here. Many sculptured likenesses were made for the great military conqueror Alexander the Great. And because of his great expansiveness in military conquests, he is well documented.

Previously, I made some distinctions on the matter of historical. There are various interpretations for that despite the fact that on the surface it appears simple.

Refer to the following:

Historical Evidence Issue 1

Historical Evidence Issue 2

Historical Evidence Issue 3

What’s In A History? 1

What’s In A History? 2

Historical Evidence Issue 4

+++

Since the Protestant Reformation, Christians have argued over what various script/texts actually mean or say. Some interpret certain scripts as historical fact. Others interpret the same scripts as metaphor or expression of belief not historical fact.

So the very phrase “historical evidence” is one which is a matter of understanding how the phrase is intended. It also may be a matter of interpretation or speculation. That is in large measure due to the 2,000 years which have passed and the lack of reliable documentation prior to modern methods of documentation which can be check, tested, and reviewed skeptically.

As I pointed out previously, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is one which is greatly disputed today given what we know about biology and medical science. Some Christians have no doctrine of Immaculate Conception. It’s not in their religious publications or their dogma. Older and perhaps more primitive doctrine was established by the doctrine-makers of an earlier time as a device, a claim to elevate their perceived Messiah Jesus to a status “son of God” different from all other men, before and after. Those invented the doctrine Immaculate Conception for Jesus. The dispute can’t be resolved. Yet, it remains doctrine (accepted or rejected or deemed unimportant).

So, questions for those who argue over doctrines of Christianity are questions of this kind.

Just what does someone mean when they make claim for historical Jesus? Some mean that every word about Jesus and every quotation alleged to have been made by Jesus was exactly and precisely accurate historically. Such claims are: Truth by assertion.

Other more liberal Christians, are quite content to stress such things as general rules of conduct as the important things regardless of the historical accuracy of the words or the various claims such as Immaculate Conception or Resurrection from the dead, etc.

We all know the old adage that if a story is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted as true regardless of whether or not it is true. Prior to the Protestant Reformation and the beginning of reading by large numbers of individuals, the masses were taught they were told what to believe by the church officialdom. Since few could read and since they were indoctrinated from cradle up, little if any interest in challenging historical accuracy may have existed.

It was only when people began to intellectualize about religious dogma/doctrine that the intellectuals began to be skeptical about some of the claims/doctrines/dogmas.

Today, the details of what one (or an organized group) claims as true/fact are not the same as what another claims. What, then, do different people mean by the use of historical when applied to religious mythology? They don’t mean the same thing. They certainly argue over the claims.

JAK

[_GoodK]

So 5 pages later, we can still safely say that there is no evidence indicating Jesus actually existed?

And what about this statement:

There were plenty attempts to debunk Christianity in the early years, but no one thought to argue Jesus never really existed. It seems this would have been an easy task back then, if it were true.

This certainly can't be correct, I will have to do some digging but I'm pretty sure it won't be hard to find a skeptic who calls for evidence indicating Jesus actually existed before the 19th century.

[_The Nehor]

GoodK,

There are many web sources for Alexander the Great, and there are book publications.

Your statement, GoodK, is correct in analysis here. Many sculptured likenesses were made for the great military conqueror Alexander the Great. And because of his great expansiveness in military conquests, he is well documented.

JAK

Are you serious? You want to judge someones existence based on number of web sources? I'm guessing Jesus has him beat in quantity hands down. There are books? Again, there are more extant texts about Jesus then Alexander the Great. Who do you think we have more sculptures of JAK, in antiquity and in the present day? Alexander or Jesus?

I'm not arguing that Alexander doesn't exist. I'm arguing that there is a lot of evidence for a historical Jesus. I can't argue definitively for every word it is recorded that he said just like there are quotes attributed to Alexander he may never have said.

Also, do you have a refutation regarding Jewish and Christian Apologetics not trying to deny that Jesus existed?