Did Jesus Exist? What historical proof is there? (page 7)

cabasilas

Those verses from John are considered to be a polemic against gnosticism (or a prototype of gnosticism), or docetism. I didn't say no one doubted his historicity. I said that there was no debate back then about his historicity. That's a modern debate.

badboy

AAG, my argument is,if there were supposedly descendants of those two apostles,why would they say that if they didn't exist.

If we take the above as true,but jesus didn't exist,then what were peter and matthew doing c.AD30,if not being jesus's apostles?

Awakened at Gilead

Maybe they were fishermen? catching fish?

BurnTheShips

So there was already significant debate in the first century about whether Jesus was historical. It's in print in the Bible.

That is not a debate regarding historicity, but regarding the nature of Christ. The ones that John is talking about here called themselves Christians, but they did not believe that he was really incarnate, or that he assumed a human nature, but that he only appeared to do so. Some of these Christians came to be called "monophysites" in later times because they believed that Christ only had one nature, the spiritual. The defined orthodox position that emerged over time has the name of "hypostatic union", this is that Christ simultaneously had two natures, human and divine, at the same time.

Incidentally, even the earliest anti-Christian polemics written by Jews and others did not venture to argue that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. Apparently, this was not a good argument back then because it was easy to refute.

You make no bones that you don't believe the Bible, and you want it to be disallowed as evidence in this thread, yet you do not hesitate to use it when it seems to be helpful to your argument. Not very fair.

BTS

Narkissos

OK, slimboyfat, I guess I'm taking the bait after all. I tend to be an agnostic on this issue which I find of little relevance, if any, to Christian faith (let alone religious philosophy). Why? Because Christian faith of every kind feeds on the integrality of Jesus' portraits and stories it receives as canonical (i.e. the NT generally, including the four gospels), notwithstanding their differences or contradictions -- not just the large or small portion of those that might be assessed as historical by modern standards. Which means (unless you're a Biblical fundamentalist insisting that every single word or act ascribed to Jesus in the NT must be factual) that Christian faith at least rests on some literary fiction. For instance, the vast majority of conservative scholars would admit that the lengthy discourses of the Johannine Jesus (which often make sense only in Greek) can hardly be ascribed to the Jesus portrayed in the Gospel of Mark. Yet they would certainly not dismiss the religious value of the Fourth Gospel for that reason. As has been said, the NT is the primary if not only source in the quest for a historical Jesus. So it all starts with exegesis and literary analysis. On this basis, the next (and last?) step is appraisal of this data from a historical perspective: somewhere between what may be historical and what needs to be historical it has to find what is likely to be historical. Which ultimately lies in the eyes of the reader. I would add that, even if there was a historical Jesus (in Galilee or Judea) he would neither be the only nor necessarily the best starting point to account for the development of the early "Christian" nebula. Are Apollo's or Paul's teachings in the Greek "churches" better explained as the evolution of an originally Palestinian movement or as a development of diaspora Judaism? What Acts portrays as a miraculous "big bang" from Jerusalem may be better understood as the progressive merging of originally independent movements. In that perspective, a "Jesus" movement in Galilea would be only one of many sources for Christianity -- not necessarily the "main" one. Leolaia wrote:

The data pertaining to James the Just in particular, and the kind of movement that he led at mid-century (see some of the discussion here: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html), persuades me that he and his brother were real figures in the history of Second Temple Judaism.

The problem with James the Just, imo, is not his historicity -- which in a sense is more established than Jesus' -- but his connection with "Christianity" and "Jesus" himself. He is a prominent Jerusalem figure with no apparent relationship with Galilee. Counting him as a (fleshly) "brother of Jesus" (an unbelieving one at that, by John 7) is just one of several strategies which early Christian writers have employed to deal with him (the expression "brothers of the Lord" may have had a different meaning originally). "Peter, James and John" as the inner circle of the Twelve in the Synoptics is strongly reminiscent of "Cephas, James and John" in Galatians. Strangely, in Acts 12, the "apostle" James is killed just before "James" pops up from nowhere as the undisputed leader of a "Jerusalem church" comprised of... pharisees and priests (chapter 15). In both Josephus and "Hegesippus"' narratives the "Christian" character of James the Just is strangely lacking, or weak. Otoh James' connection with the temple is central -- even in Acts (chapter 21). So I still feel there is quite a gap from James to Jesus.

peacefulpete

Did Jesus exist? Sure, there were many.

Awakened at Gilead

You make no bones that you don't believe the Bible, and you want it to be disallowed as evidence in this thread, yet you do not hesitate to use it when it seems to be helpful to your argument. Not very fair.

BTS, I already admitted, my bad for citing the Bible... I said - Casabilas pointed this out:

You got me on that one, casabilas... I broke my own rules... I opened a can of worms didn't I...

Thanks for commenting. I appreciate that you are reading this thread and that you are not a fundamentalist ideologue. Kudos to you for that, BTS.

Double Edge

But it seems that the truth about Jesus is quite hazy,

and isn't that as it should be - not all of the answers being revealed in this life make for an interesting "quest" on our journey. An athlete become strong and skilled by excercising those muscles and talents that make him what he is; why is it any different for those trying to figure out the mysteries of life? One needs something to propel them forward.... and for me (speaking only for myself) faith fits the bill.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

With his preaching of the uncovering of secrets, illumination, the stones crying out, you would expect that he would have abundant external proof of his historical existance, miracles, and teaching.
Where would you say such proof should be? The documents we have from that era are rather sparse. Are you not setting up a standard that could dismantle most of our received history of antiquity?
Why didn't the generations that lived soon after Jesus debate his existence?

Cabasilas - Leolaia's post mentions the lack of description of Jesus by historians. Yet these same historians speak of many other people of the time, including false prophets. There is abundant proof for many ancient kings, pharoahs, ceasers, high priests, etc. Monuments from antiquity prove beyond a doubt that they existed, including pyramids, tombs, arches, columns, etc. Tables and scrolls contain the very words of these men, seemingly preserved for eternity. There is no need to question our received history of antiquity. With Jesus, there are no monuments erected by the magi or tablets signed by healed lepers. Perhaps most unfortunate fact is that the king of kings never wrote a single word for posterity. Jesus never wrote any part of the Bible. Moses did. David did. But the story of his life, miracles, and teachings were written by others, "imperfect men". Something else I've never understood is why the first three gospels cover much of the same material and appear complete, yet over 30 years later, John reports on the resurrection of Lazarus. What? How could the other three have forgotten about such a major episode in Jesus ministry? Did Lazarus just disappear after his resurrection so that everyone, including Paul, forgot about this amazing miracle?

There would be several reasons that I would assume that many never debated the existence of Jesus. Firstly, how would someone like Josephus debate the existence of Jesus since they never really heard of him. Would it be expected that he would list every person that did not exist in the first century and that he had never known? Secondly, after the destruction of the temple, Jewish records, and the priesthood in 70CE, Jews opposing Christianity would be more interested in their own survival than in debate. Thirdly, with the growth of the clergy and their political power, any debate was eventually silenced and documents could be altered to their liking.

Cabasilas, I don't care to argue. I'm just answering your questions as best I understand the history of the period. I'm no history scholar. I got my training from Beth-hell. I wish it were all true, especially since I dedicated so much of my life to a messiah that doesn't give a crap about me.

Sorry to hijack your thread, A@G, I'll leave it alone now.

OUTLAW

AAG/Lance..A lady in Mexico poured pancake batter,into a frying pan..It cooked into a pancake,that look`s exactly like Jesus on the Cross!!..People come from miles around to pay Homage,to the Jesus Pancake!.....What more proof do you need?!............................... Laughing Mutley ...OUTLAW

Did Jesus Exist? What historical proof is there?

Share this