No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

[_Mary]

GoodK, if I could see a good argument for the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a person then I would take it on board.

A good argument? A complete lack of any contemporary evidence for the Jesus character in the Bible isn't good enough?

How does one go about proving something doesn't or never existed?

The New Testament, as a historical document, is pretty good evidence in my opinion and I wonder why you would reject it completely out of hand. Woven into what may well be, plenty of myth, is a man, whose mother was Mary, who had a family of brothers and sisters and who probably met a violent death at the hands of either/or/and certain Jewish groups and the Romans.



From Matthew:12

55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Homer's Iliad was thought to be fiction, until Schliemann used it for clues to identify Troy's location. Myth's are often built on a kernel of truth, surely?

I'm quite happy to debate (as many on your list are) the personality, life and actions of this man, but I don't think that there are that many
historians of repute who would state that he never existed.

I disagree.

What you seemed to have quoted above, are a long line of people who doubt Jesus' divinity, miracles and the way that his name has been used to often justify quite horrific practices and beliefs. I don't see that you are quoting that many there that would deny that he existed as an itinerant Jewish preacher.

# "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

Robert E. Van Voorst is a pastor. Do you expect me to be surprised that he doesn't deny the existence of Jesus?

It's not who he is, that is important in this, but the statement he made. Prove that he is wrong.

I also think that there is evidence from non-biblical sources that Jesus existed as a person (was greatly interested in Trevor's thoughts on the subject of Tacitus for instance).

Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117)

Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.).

Why is your Tacitus quote so different than mine?

Probably because there are a number of translations out there.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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

Are you paraphrasing? What part of Annals XV are you quoting?

I'll go check Goodk.

I'll wait for your response before I move on to the other Pagan writer/historians and the Josephus fraud you've cited (that has been well established as a hoax for longer than I have been alive)

I'm aware of the research that has been done to suggest that certain paragraphs of Josephus were added to or embelished, but I'm not aware of any that conclusively prooves the non-existence of Jesus. (http://www.british-israel.ca/josephus.htm) Even the Slavonic Josephus is evidence of the existence of Jesus, albeit in a much changed format.

Mary

[_GoodK]

The New Testament, as a historical document, is pretty good evidence in my opinion and I wonder why you would reject it completely out of hand.

I understand that that is your opinion, however I certainly don't share it. The New Testament, in my opinion, is clearly nothing more than ancient fiction.
To consider any of the books in the New Testament as historical evidence requires abandoning a certain level of intellectual honesty.

But if you consider the New Testament a historical document, and evidence for Jesus, then I suggest you read through this thread which has already addressed that belief and the topic of Evidence for Jesus: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=5200

Myth's are often built on a kernel of truth, surely?

I don't know. There are thousands of Gods that are no longer worshipped, hundreds of religious books to be ignored, too many insane religious myths. But I don't think it takes much evidence to convince someone of something they already want to believe.

What you seemed to have quoted above, are a long line of people who doubt Jesus' divinity, miracles and the way that his name has been used to often justify quite horrific practices and beliefs. I don't see that you are quoting that many there that would deny that he existed as an itinerant Jewish preacher.

Think about what you have indicated - rightfully so - as your biggest evidence for the Jesus character in the Bible. The Bible itself. Specifically, the New Testament. So if someone rejects THAT character, the Jesus the New Testament tells us about, what else must they say?
We don't have any contemporary evidence of this intinerant Jewish preacher version of Jesus, either.

Robert E. Van Voorst is a pastor. Do you expect me to be surprised that he doesn't deny the existence of Jesus?

It's not who he is, that is important in this, but the statement he made.

The statement that he thinks it is unscholarly to doubt the existence of Jesus? He is hardly a noteworthy scholar, he is a preacher.

Evidence over interest.

He has no interest in exploring the possibility that Jesus never even existed.

Prove that he is wrong.

Prove a negative. Sure, no problem. As soon as I prove to Harmony that Hell doesn't exist, and as soon as I prove to my little sister that Big Foot isn't real, I will get started on proving that Jesus did not exist.

I'm aware of the research that has been done to suggest that certain paragraphs of Josephus were added to or embelished, but I'm not aware of any that conclusively prooves the non-existence of Jesus. (http://www.british-israel.ca/josephus.htm)

You seem wanting for proof Jesus doesn't exist. I am not going to provide that for you.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on those who wish to insist that the Jesus Christ fairy tale is literally true.

Even the Slavonic Josephus is evidence of the existence of Jesus, albeit in a much changed format.

How do you figure?

[_Mary]

GoodK,

You still havn't addressed Tabor's research.

[_GoodK]

GoodK,

You still havn't addressed Tabor's research.

I didn't know that you were just throwing out as many darts and waiting to see which ones stick.

You brought up Tacitus first, and I refuted it.

You still have not acknowledged that yet, which would indicate it is time to move on to the next faulty "evidence" you cited for Jesus.

[_Mary]

GoodK,

You still havn't addressed Tabor's research.

I didn't know that you were just throwing out as many darts and waiting to see which ones stick.

You brought up Tacitus first, and I refuted it.

You still have not acknowledged that yet, which would indicate it is time to move on to the next faulty "evidence" you cited for Jesus.

Actually, I would have thought, that you would find Tabor's research interesting, simply because, if the cluster of named ossuaries that were found in Talpiot, are from the early family of Jesus, it would/could do two things

1) Indicate that Jesus most likely existed as a person, and that he was buried with family.
2) Provide evidence that resurrection did not occur in quite the way that many believe.

It's interesting stuff. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss or overlook it..

Mary

[_GoodK]

It's interesting stuff. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss or overlook it..

Mary

I actually own the documentary James Cameron did on the tomb. I am very familiar with it.

[_Mary]

I'm quite prepared to accept that much of Jesus life is based on myth goodk, but I don't see any good reason to question that he existed as a person of some sort. Just the same as I am quite prepared to accept the existence in one form or another of Siddhartha Guatama, Muhammad and Joseph Smith, without neccessarily having to accept all the mythos that may surround them.

So, what do you think of the ossuaries and the cluster of names, as evidence for the existence of Jesus?


Mary

[_GoodK]

I'm quite prepared to accept that much of Jesus life is based on myth goodk, but I don't see any good reason to question that he existed as a person of some sort. Just the same as I am quite prepared to accept the existence in one form or another of Siddhartha Guatama, Muhammad and Joseph Smith, without neccessarily having to accept all the mythos that may surround them.

So, what do you think of the ossuaries and the cluster of names, as evidence for the existence of Jesus?


Mary

I think it is very interesting. Jesus was a common name. It is the name in combination with Mary that makes it compelling. A compelling argument. Not compelling evidence. And I imagine much of the Christian community, along with the Mormon communty, rejects the idea of a Jesus family tomb.

[_Nevo]

On the contrary, the prevailing view among scholars is that "the basic kernel" of the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.3.3 #63-64) is "authentic"--that is, it originated with Josephus (see Louis H. Feldman, "Flavius Josephus Revisited: the Man, His Writings, and His Significance," Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini [Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984], 822; see also, Feldman, Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography [New York/London: Garland, 1986], 618-19, 677).

Are you going to elaborate on what that "basic kernel" is?

Sure. Here is John Meier's reconstruction:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out."

See John P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus, a Modest Proposal," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 76-103; also, Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave; A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 1 (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 373-76, and Craig A. Evans, "Jesus in Non-Christian Sources," Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 466-70.

[Schreech]

I'm quite prepared to accept that much of Jesus life is based on myth goodk, but I don't see any good reason to question that he existed as a person of some sort. Just the same as I am quite prepared to accept the existence in one form or another of Siddhartha Guatama, Muhammad and Joseph Smith, without neccessarily having to accept all the mythos that may surround them.

So, what do you think of the ossuaries and the cluster of names, as evidence for the existence of Jesus?


Mary

I think it is very interesting. Jesus was a common name. It is the name in combination with Mary that makes it compelling. A compelling argument. Not compelling evidence. And I imagine much of the Christian community, along with the Mormon communty, rejects the idea of a Jesus family tomb.

Absolutely. I watched the theological reaction with great interest. All the more interesting as I remember watching the original BBC documentary that aired many years ago, before Simcha Jacobivici came along!

Mary