Did Jesus Exist? What historical proof is there?

by Awakened at Gilead 103 Replies latest members adult

• 

  besty

  The proof you seek is given today in the same way every single true believer has ever received it. Directly from Christ Jesus himself. All that non-believers will ever get from Christ's people is a testimony.......an accounting that is subjective by nature, and therefore unprovable. The change in their lives, however, does offer some evidence of the miraculous conversion of those that have truly been touched by the hand of God. The original question was "did Jesus exist?" I say unequivocally yes. And not only did he exist historically, he still exists and he still reveals himself to his own. Can I 'prove' it? No. But proving it isn't my job. I can give people my testimony. What they do with it is their business.

  So just to be clear the magick man in the sky is talking to you (but not me cuz i don't believe in him) and then you are gonna tell me what he's saying. Are you my Mediator?

  Believing 'unequivocally' in something that is unfalsifiable is not for me, sorry. No better than Scientology on that basis.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Believing 'unequivocally' in something that is unfalsiable is not for me, sorry.

  The scientific method is a good tool for a certain range of human experience, but not for all of it. Many humans have experienced things that can be neither proved or disproved by science. Does their experience lack meaning? Does it lack reality? In the end, all experience is mediated by the human mind. It receives its meaning and value from it. That is a filter you can never get rid of, and it mocks any attempt at absolute objectivity. A great many of our deepest truths are scientifically unfalsifiable. To live a life rejecting these due to an empirical test of falsifiability is--for me--to not be fully human.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  Slimboyfat,

  In my opinion "Christianity," or "the Christian faith," is not historically, currently or potentially as monolithic as you seem to imply -- and was certainly even much less so in its incipient stages, prior to its Catholic (or orthodox) standardisation.

  "Jesus dying for us" now sounds as an unnegotiable element of Christian faith. It is certainly present in the N.T. (although the "for" part actually covers a large variety of contradictory interpretations -- such as expiation, propitiation, ransom, but also as a figure of lifegiving wisdom, or a model of dying to the world/ourselves. Whether it was actually shared by all segments of the early Christian nebula is another matter. If, for instance, the Sermon of the mount exposes anything like a "Christian way of salvation" we must acknowledge that "Jesus dying for us" plays absolutely no part in it: salvation depends on what you do, not what you believe has happened sometime in the past.

  Of course the kind of Christianity which eventually defined itself through rejection of Gnosticism and Docetism has a vested interest in history (i.e., the history it wrote up as its own foundation). This is a historical choice (and a rather shortsighted one if you ask me).

  The concept of "salvific events" is a highly problematic one when you come to think of it (and this has not been missed by Christian theology). Historical events per se do not "save" anybody (at least in the otherworldly sense of Christian "salvation") without the mediation of the anhistorical -- be it theology or mythology. There is no inherent religious difficulty in the idea of a "god" saving his worshipers after death, or even leading history to an end and new beginning in apocalyptical fashion, even though he has never "become flesh" or set foot on this earth. On the other hand, the crucifixion of a historical man would not save anybody without the superposition of a non-historical narrative (e.g., he was actually a god coming down from heaven, or he cancels a mysterious debt in an equally mysterious somewhere, etc.).
• 

  slimboyfat

  It is one thing to say that history may not matter theoretically to some alternative construction of Christian faith, or even to primitive forms of Christianity that have not survivied. But where are all these Christians today from whom it does not matter whether the core of the story about Jesus is true? Christianity as it is, not as you would alternatively construct it, is fundamentally a historical faith and the vast majority of believers today see it that way. Do they all misunderstand the basis of their faith?

  Of course the kind of Christianity which eventually defined itself through rejection of Gnosticism and Docetism has a vested interest in history ( i.e., the history it wrote up as its own foundation). This is a historical choice (and a rather shortsighted one if you ask me).

  Christianity of that "kind" is the kind that we have today. Concerning other forms as a living breathing community of faith there is little to speak of. You started off by arguing that Christianity does not stand or fall on the historicity of Jesus. But now you seem to be arguing, not that it does not stand on that basis, but that it need not stand on that basis, which is rather different. Christianity may or may not be short-sighted in how it formulates its claim for the efficacy of its message, but the fact remains Christianity as it exists (not as it might/should/could exist) claims to rest on key historical events.

  Jesus' death in and of itself could not save anyone without God's decree that it does so. I think believers and non-believers would agree. I personally don't understand how the death or sacrifice of anyone can be said to effect the salvation of another. But that is the claim Christians make for the event and its consequence. To say that the event is both not necessary and not necessarily effective is to criticise it from the outside, from a rational standpoint. To say that Christianity could function without Jesus having actually died for others so long as God steps in and does the actual saving is to reject both what the sacred writings of faith state about the necessity of Jesus' death and what current believers maintain. It might provide a rational basis for belief in salvation without the need for the events to be historical, but it would do so at the expense of the traditional basis Christianity has claimed for itself and believers today still hold as essential. Would it still even be Christianity? Would Christians themselves believe it?

  There is no inherent religious difficulty in the idea of a "god" saving his worshipers after death, or even leading history to an end and new beginning in apocalyptical fashion, even though he has never "become flesh" or set foot on this earth.

  There is no inherent difficulty in setting up some sort of faith along those lines. There is great difficulty in trying to maintain that Christianity is compatible with such a formulation, not because it would be an impossible alternative, but simply because it flies in the face of Christian tradition and current practice.
• 

  Narkissos

  But where are all these Christians today from whom it does not matter whether the core of the story about Jesus is true?

  I'm not sure what you mean by "the core of the story" (that being probably the core of the problem!) but any Christian who has been in contact with the historico-critical studies of the NT, mostly led by devout Christian scholars since the 19th century, is aware that the Gospels are not plain historical accounts. So to your question I'd reply that "these Christians" are more often found behind the pulpit than on the church bench. There has been a tremendous communication gap, partly because "pastoral cautiousness" (or cowardice) has hindered the popularisation of scholarship among the general church audience, but it is quickly being filled through the new media configuration.

  You started off by arguing that Christianity does not stand or fall on the historicity of Jesus. But now you seem to be arguing, not that it does not stand on that basis, but that it need not stand on that basis, which is rather different.

  My initial point was, rather, that whatever the amount of historical stuff contained in the Gospel stories, a large section of current Christians (in both mainstream Protestant churches and the Catholic church since the mid 1940's) has already learnt to deal successfully with the idea that at least some of the Gospel stories are just stories. In many churches next Christmas the Nativity stories will be preached, not as a historical fact, but as a beautiful tale to the effect that "God meets mankind in Jesus Christ". Practically Christianity feeds on texts, not the history (or lack thereof) behind texts. This, imo, leaves the issue of the "historical Jesus" open, but much less relevant to theology than many might think.
• 

  Quirky1

  There is plenty of hysterical proof!!
• 

  slimboyfat

  Narkissos,

  I would say the core of the story is that Jesus was a man but was also the Son of God and that he gave his life for mankind.

  My initial point was, rather, that whatever the amount of historical stuff contained in the Gospel stories, a large section of current Christians (in both mainstream Protestant churches and the Catholic church since the mid 1940's) has already learnt to deal successfully with the idea that at least some of the Gospel stories are just stories.

  Ah I thought you elided the general point that nearly everyone accepts some parts of the gospels are embellished for the far grander claim that it would not matter if most or all of it were in fact historically inaccurate. It is one thing for many liberal believers to concede that much of the gospels is myth; it would be quite another for them to abandon the basic story about Jesus as the saviour sent by God to give his life altogether.

  I mean I know you can point to a few Anglican priests and so on who don't believe pretty much any of the Bible's special claims, and are even atheist for that matter. But outside of a few oddballs, who stay in the church nominally for various reasons, I just do not think there exists something that could be called a strand of current Christianity that does not rely on the historicity of Jesus and his death and resurrection as the basis of their faith. Liberal Christians, yes they can easily dispense with the Nativity story, but it is not so clear one can reject Jesus' actual death for others (not the minute details in the gospels, but the fact) without rejecting Christianity itself.

  It does not make much sense to me to talk about Christianity without its historical basis. One of the key distinguishing features of the Abrahamic faiths is their appeal to historical events as the basis for their salvation story.
• 

  besty

  @BTS

  Believing 'unequivocally' in something that is unfalsifiable is not for me, sorry.

  It is the unequivocal nature of the belief that makes me uneasy. More evidence = more likelihood of actuality. Less evidence (the point of the OP) = less believable.

  narkissos appears to attempt a circumvention by arguing for a progressive Christianity that promotes less and less reliance on the historicity of the man-God Jesus - removing the need for any evidence if you will. Christianity based on a collection of imaginary events...it bothers me that all those Christians will get to heaven and Jesus won't be there....

  A sceptical thought process is healthy - ask ex-JW's if they plan joining another cult any time soon, and if not, why not.

  If Occam is right then Jesus didn't exist. Simple. If that makes me sub-human and true believers proto-divine I can live (and die) with that.
• 

  Awakened at Gilead

  A sceptical thought process is healthy - ask ex-JW's if they plan joining another cult any time soon, and if not, why not.

  Yes, why not subject Christianity to the same criticism that we have subjected the WTS? I have no intention of joining the Christian cult!
• 

  daniel-p

  While not having read all 5 pages entirely, I hope I can chime in here with the last statement made by BTS: I agree. In most instances this constitutes a phenomenological approach. If you're going to set aside the "universal truths" of modernistic methods, then you must also assign yourself to the interpretation of subjective experience.