There’s lots of ambiguous information. There is no firsthand, historically agreed upon data that supports his existence in the form we know him today. In other words, there was no magical guy doing magical things.
There is no Roman record of “nailed 3 prisoners to the posts today; Bill, Roger, and Jesus the magic guy who was a pain in the ass.”
However, like Arthurian Legend, it doesn’t mean some guy like Jesus didn’t exist, or an aggregate of characters weren’t assembled to be him on story. Arthur was possibly just a chieftain of a group who fought a couple of hefty battles and made a name for himself, but he ended up being an almost magical figure with wizards and witches in the story and - guess what, he will “rise again” from the dead when needed. And no, rising from the dead isn’t owned by Christian religious figures, Osiris of Egypt did it, Dionysius of the Greek Pantheon among many others. So maybe some dude, who probably wasn’t named Jesus, caused a stir and got a few people to take note. That grew over hundreds and even thousands of years to what we have now.
Want to know why King Arthur isn’t a competitor to Jesus? He a) doesn’t offer the opportunity to control people in this life for the hope of an afterlife, b) he isn’t profitable.
An interesting thing about what we have now in Christianity though is that it basically spawned as-is in the first century, with the Gospels and Paul’s letters being written decades apart, as well as Church Father’s writings being very consistent. Main differences has been the Roman Catholic Church developing their own doctrine such as Purgatory over time, while the Orthodox and the Protestants tend to reject such developments.
So if it is just a legend, something must have happened to cause a consistent story to develop fairly quickly in comparison to the likes of other legends.
An interesting thing about what we have now in Christianity though is that it basically spawned as-is in the first century
The article says:
Little is fully known of Christianity in its first 150 years; sources are few.
So you’re making a huge, sweeping statement that Christianity as we know it today is based on something…we don’t know much about? There are 6 major Christian denominations, not to mention hundreds of smaller ones. Which one is the “as-is” one? The one that is exactly “as-is” from CE 100?
You’re forgetting that denominations aren’t actually that different. They all ascribe to the fundamental beliefs in the death and resurrection of Jesus. We do have the Acts of The Apostles as well which documents the early church. The New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus and all Christians still follow it
But things like church structure, importance of tradition and beauty, exact liturgy formats aren’t fundamental to the faith. The fundamentals stayed the same. The only real evolution was Roman Catholicism which adopted additional dogmas over time, but that’s it really.
See, now you’re moving the goalposts. You made a sweeping statement that Christianity is as-is compared to the first century CE. Yet here you are breaking it down and excluding things.
Let’s just face it, you don’t mean Christianity as a whole is same as 2kyr ago. It isn’t. They held on to some facets of it, got rid of others, but kept the main themes like resurrection and the like. Heck, there are even some that suggest the resurrection story was added centuries later.
I said it was as-is in the context of your statement. Your claim was that the figure of Jesus had evolved over hundreds of years like King Arthur. I said that no, the doctrine surrounding Jesus was basically as-is. Now you’re being pedantic about it. The fact is, 99% of the things believed about Jesus nowadays was believed by first century Christians. We can use the New Testament as a source for that, as they are what our beliefs are based on. There are no early records about a Jesus existing that show him not being a divine miracle worker who rose from the dead. Unlike figures - even Christian figures such as St Patrick who had later attributions of legend like leading snakes out of Ireland, or even the Virgin Mary in the Assumption of Mary, Conceived without sin, perpetual virginity, etc. All of which are found centuries later than the original documents actually surrounding Mary, some of which could have even been written in her lifetime.
However, like Arthurian Legend, it doesn’t mean some guy like Jesus didn’t exist, or an aggregate of characters weren’t assembled to be him on story.
That’s what I said.
I used Arthur as a fellow mythology, along with a conditional “or” he could be an aggregate character.
The moment of resurrection itself is not described in any of the gospels, but all four contain passages in which Jesus is portrayed as predicting his death and resurrection, or contain allusions that “the reader will understand”. The New Testament writings do not contain any descriptions of a resurrection but rather accounts of an empty tomb.
So therefore I stand by the premise that changes have been made, and what existed in 100 is not what we have today.
You’ll have to forgive me if I bow out. I do not share your beliefs, nor am I willing to continue to argue over religious texts that are self-referencing to constitute proof.
The New Testament Writings do not contain any descriptions of a resurrection
Me when I lie on the internet
Matthew 28:2-10 NRSV
[2] And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. [3] His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. [4] For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. [5] But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. [6] He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. [7] Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.” [8] So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. [9] Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. [10] Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
Mark 16:4-8 NRSV
[4] When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. [5] As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. [6] But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. [7] But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” [8] So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Luke 24:2-9 NRSV
[2] They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, [3] but when they went in, they did not find the body. [4] While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. [5] The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. [6] Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, [7] that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” [8] Then they remembered his words, [9] and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.
John 20:1-18 NRSV
[1] Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. [2] So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” [3] Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. [4] The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. [5] He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. [6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, [7] and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. [8] Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; [9] for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. [10] Then the disciples returned to their homes. [11] But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; [12] and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. [13] They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” [14] When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” [16] Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). [17] Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” [18] Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
So you got it from some wiki instead of looking at the source text 🤣 fair enough if it wasn’t your mistake I guess. It just goes to show that without lies, Atheism dies.
Ofc there are. Unless they got destroyed someway or another. There was a guy named Jesus that was crucified by the romans and all that. There is proof of that. It’s all the biblical stuff that there’s no proof of.
There was a guy named Jesus that was crucified by the romans and all that. There is proof of that
There isn’t actually. The proof is basically: it’s embarassing that their cult leader got painfully crucified, so the early Christians and writers of the new testament wouldn’t have made that shit up.
Don’t believe in god either way, but if it’s good enough for the majority of historians , then it’s good enough for me. Not sure why you’d need more, but you do you.
if it’s good enough for the majority of historians
It isn’t. Historians would love to have independent evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, but there isn’t… so most historians refrain from taking a position one way or the other. The ones that do have to make do with what little objective information they have, and the best they can come up with is: well because of this embarassing thing, it’s more likely that he did exist and was crucified than that he didn’t, because why would they make that up?
That’s rather weak evidence, and far from “proof”.
Not sure why you’d need more
Well for one because the more prominent people who have studied this have a vested interest in wanting it to be true. For example, John P. Meier, who posited this criterion of embarassment that I outlined in my previous comment, isn’t really a historian but a catholic priest, professor of theology (not history) and a writer of books on the subject.
So instead of taking the glory for themselves like pretty much all other humans they decide to preach about an imaginary friend? Meh… Between “guy who got lost in history” and “bunch of guys that raved about that one gf that went to a different school”, I’ll go with the former as the more plausible one.
I’ll concede the fact that it’s not the same level of proof as other figures, but all these people writing about him is more than we have about others.
Yeah, I guess that’s fair. Religion and history are so intertwined when it comes to this subject that it’s easy to dismiss sources as biased, which is what’s happening here. Still not convinced they should be dismissed in this case
Lee Strobel (former athirst, investigative journalist) wrote a book titled The Case For Christ.
His goal was to write the difinive work on proving that Jesus wasn’t who the Christians claim him to be. It backfired on him and he became a Christian.
(See below comment from @weststadtgesicht with a more accurate quote.)
If you’re wanting to read more on this topic, definitely read both sides and determine which has the stronger case. But the Strobel book seems to be well researched and well written, at least to me.
That’s not really how he himself describes it. His wife became a Christian and after going to church with her he wanted to investigate the backgrounds - he didn’t want to disprove Christianity and was quite open-minded instead:
She invited me to a church, where I heard the Gospel explained in a way I could understand it. While I didn’t believe it, I realized that if it were true, it would have big implications for my life. So I decided to use my journalism experience and legal expertise (at the time, I was legal editor of The Chicago Tribune) to investigate whether there was any credibility to Christianity or any other faith system.
Where did you find that his goal was to prove Jesus wasn’t who Christians claim to be? From what I’ve read about Lee Strobel, he was sort of an atheist by default and converted when his wife did. He became a pastor and only wrote the Case for Christ more than a decade later
It really isn’t so clearcut. You don’t need an actual Jesus for the words attributed to him to be true. “Jesus” works perfectly fine as a container for an idea.
Thing is, it goes against man’s desires. The other religions that took off generally allow men to take more than one wife, fight wars, etc. Christianity basically asks of one to be poor and selfless and pure
The context within which you are raised matters so much more than what’s written in your chosen scripture. That and self interest. Between those two, pretty much anyone can wrangle themselves into believing anything they want. The history of how we got here from there is similarly irrelevant.
There’s quite a bit of contrast between Christianity and Islam in terms of how scripture is presented, as Islam teaches that the Qur’an is literally the words of God. As for Judaism, it’s unfulfilled, and if the New Testament about Jesus is actually true to what happened, then the Jewish prophecies clearly point to Him. Other than that it’s a very elaborate scam made by well educated people which doesn’t really give them any benefit.
My parents weren’t executed horribly, what are you talking about about? I’m still talking about contemporary Christian belief. Thesis: You can consider yourself Christian without belief in Jesus as a historical figure. Many Christians are happy to understand Jesus as metaphors and an ideal. Like if you took the actually good Superman stories and removed all the context, you could idealize the individual to the point of worship without believing he’s real.
The whole point of Christianity isn’t just to “do good”. The foundation is that we aren’t good enough by nature and are flawed by our own fault, but by trusting in and following God, we can be forgiven. Because Jesus literally existed and was executed for our sins.
That feels a lot like your personal interpretation. You do not get to decide how people who call themselves Christian define themselves.
Fables are worth listening to for the morals they include. Why wouldn’t an ancient holy book be a moralistic guide to show the way to heaven, whatever that is which is not defined in scripture
You go ahead and do that. Worth noting that Islam doesn’t have a protestant reformation thats come in to say “f this the rules are whatever I want them to be personally,” so it’s basically still in its Catholic hegemony phase.
The protestant reformation didn’t do that. In fact, it was the opposite. It was based on the Bible over everything and shedding the idea of a pope who can claim “the rules are whatever I want them to be personally”
But that’s literally the second thing to happen in the protestant reformation. King Henry saw that Martin Luther guy and said “shit if he doesn’t have to listen to the Pope, I don’t either. Let’s strait up rewrite the Bible motherfucker!” So that the parts he didn’t like didn’t apply. Are you gonna say anglicans aren’t Christian?
Public education in US… Thanks for the correction.
Regardless… Mormons, JWs and Seventh Day Adventists get away with being Christian, so yah, I think you can get away with calling yourself a Christian and believing whatever you want.
Mormons and JWs are not Christian. The only ones who call Mormons and JWs Christian are themselves. Mormons and JWs are as Christian as the Chinese Communist Party is Communist. Even the Catholics agree that many Protestants are Christian but just in “imperfect communion” with them.
There are some fringe extreme SDAs who reject Christian doctrine, but most are Christian. Although I have sort of seen them grouped into the “borderline heretical” category.
JWs have their own “translation” of the Bible to fit their doctrine which basically every scholar rejects. Mormons have their third testament from a prophet- and is actually similar to Islam if you think about the circumstances (Prophet comes along hundreds of years later, claims Christians were doing it wrong and that he has an authoritative revelation, uses it to justify polygamy and political power, etc)
Protestant Christians do have varying interpretations of the Bible, but all agree on the Trinity, Biblical canon (which was the same as what the Catholics used before the council of Trent) and the core Gospel message which makes up 95% of things.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. You acknowledge that the Catholics don’t have control over what is and isn’t Christian, and that there are secta they’d deem as heretics at best or apostates at worst. That said there are many protestant denominations that won’t. There are wildly different interpretations of the Bible, WBC for example says a bunch of things that most Christians would consider unchristian, but the same holy texts, are used as source material.
Similarly, the belief in things like miracles, transubstantiation, literally of the Bible, the invention of the bodily rapture… Oh hey, and the trinity, let’s not forget about the monophosotes (sure they haven’t really been around for like a thousand years but…) What about the coptics? Are they not Christian cause their books are different?
The trinity is in the Bible. Not the word “trinity”, but our understanding of it comes purely from the Bible. Which is why even most SDAs agree with it. Real presence (part of the doctrine of transubstantiation) and miracles are also biblical. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price aren’t biblical. Just like how the Qur’an isn’t biblical.
Muslim means “one who submits”, so I could identify as a muslim even though I don’t even adhere to Islam- it doesn’t make me Muslim.
Ehhhhhh, you probably aren’t trying to be technical, but it’s worth noting that circumstancial evidence is definitely a thing; is evidence that suggests but doesn’t definitively state. As mentioned in this tread, Nero calls out pilate for executing Jesus. There’s also the often overlooked circumstancial evidence that there’s a whole ass religion to the guy, which sure there are other religions etc etc, but most of them don’t have a semi Devine being that you can point to specific dates and times…
I will continue on, I’m an atheist, so I’m not arguing for Christianity, so here’s obligatory circumstancial evidence against historical J.
Wasn’t a census when he was supposed to be born. No written accounts of Herod executing every baby boy in Judea. Etc etc lmgtfy if you need it
The Nero reference you are mentioning was written by Tacitus over a century after he was supposed to have lived. The fact of the matter js that there is no contemporary primary rvidence of hus exisrence.
Frankly, I have no primary evidence of your existence. I could be arguing with a bot right now and it wouldn’t be unbelievable. Primary evidence is a motherfucker, the guy we are talking about was probably illiterate, talking to more people who were illiterate, what kind of primary evidence could there be? Even if we had a body, could we really point to it and say with any real confidence that it was Jesus or just some other person that was crucified?
Honestly ask yourself, what would you accept as primary evidence?
I had read that there were Roman census records that proved a Rabbi named Jesus did live at about the right time, but now I can’t find a source to back that up, so that’s probably bunk.
If you compare that with records we have for the likes of Alexander the Great though being 400 years later, it’s not that implausible. And you’d be discounting the Christian Gospels and Paul’s Epistles which were mere decades after Jesus
Interesting, what kind of records do we have from Alexander’s time? And yeah, I agree, the early gospels and the later Roman references probably indicate Rabbi named Jesus was crucified, but I don’t think that a secondary source or religious texts really meet OP’s criteria for, “physical proof.” (Although we probably don’t have, “physical proof,” for a lot of historical events we generally accept have happened).
Completely unlikely since no such census records are extant.
People who are jnfamilhar with the historiography are very much overestimating the amount of primary source material which exists from the Roman Empire, simply because historians have been very good at extracting information from the miniscule fraction (relative to the amount which was produced) of extant written sources we do have from the period.
There are no such records. Just having any extant census records from the Roman Empire would have pretty sensational, let alone some stemming from Judea at the supposed time of Jesus.
Yeah, that makes sense. I wish I could track down where I read this to figure out if it’s a bad source or I’m misremembering it. I may be mistaking Tacitus’ reference to Christ, but I don’t think it’s that. I distinctly remember reading about some sort of population record of a Rabbi named Jesus and thinking, “Wow, I’m surprised a record like that survived.” The problem is this was 10+ years ago, and search engines suck now, so I’ll never find it again.
That’s not the real question though. The real question is rather are there any “real physical proof” that Jesus had literally anything special that is in itself being the “son of God” or anything related to religion.
Anybody (sadly) can be crucified, especially during a period where it is trendy. Anybody can walk through part of the desert. Anybody can organize a meal, give a speech, etc.
Even if it’s done exceptionally well, that does not make it special in the sense of being the proof of anything religious. We all have friends with unique talents, and social media helped us discovered that there are so many more of those around the entire world, but nobody in their right mind would claim that because Eminem can sing words intelligibly faster than the vast majority of people he is the son of “God”.
I also read a book about a decade ago (unfortunately didn’t write down notes about it so can’t find the name back) on the history of religion, from polytheism to monotheism, and it was quite interesting. If I remember correctly one way to interpret it was through the lens of religions maintaining themselves over time and space, which could include growing to a sufficient size in terms of devout adepts. The point being that veracity was not part of the equation.
Well, that’s the question if you want to believe in Christianity.
It’s nearly universally accepted that he is a historical figure, though there is little to no evidence of that. The OP is asking why is that the case with so little evidence. They (presumably) aren’t asking for a religious reason, just as an interest in history. If you are Christian and asking this question you are well past the point of no return for your faith
No, OPs question was perfectly fine, because it is necessary to stress the fact that we have not a single contemporary primary source that Jesus existed. So adding extra parameters is pretty pointless, since we cannot convincingly answer whether he actually existed, much less whether he was a religious figure. Scholars have reached a conjectural consensus that a Jesus in some form likely existed, but it is a consendus based on congecture and circumstantial evidence in the form of later secondary sources.
After reading that page, I strongly suspect that’s not him. It’s all based on statistical modeling, and it’s been heavily massaged. Even with that, they give it 1/600 odds (on the low end) of it being random chance, which those aren’t bad odds.
Apparently the inscriptions are partially illegible, so assuming it’s even correct their statistical model is based on the name Mariamne being Mary Magdelene (which is clearly not the name we remember her by) and being Jesus’s wife, Maria being the mother, and Jesus having a son, which we didn’t know about, named Judah, as well as a few other assumption that really do not feel like they should be making.
Even making a ton of assumptions, the odds are still not particularly convincing. It feels like something that can increase someone’s faith if they don’t question it, but if you examine it at all reveals how much people are reaching to prove what they already want to believe.
I’d have guess people who thought the tomb was for the Jesus would have their faith shaken by it since it would mean Jesus was married and had a kid, though there are some obscure Christian sects that have believed that.
This conclusion, while weakly supported by a statistical analysis of the names involved, is rejected by most archaeologists, theologians, linguistic and biblical scholars.
There’s a bunch of references for archaeologists debunking it.
I know you said “it might not be him” but I feel like that understates the weight of evidence against that possibility.
The respectable probability estimates range from astronomically unlikely to merely unlikely. In other words, we don’t have incontrovertible ways of calculating the probability.
While it’s not great or convincing evidence, it’s the only physical evidence I know about.
If you’re happy with this type of calculation then the probability that this tomb is that of biblical Jesus is (number of occupants) / (number of humans in that area at the time the tomb was built).
Before Jesus, many people were sanctified in the flesh in this way.Later, Jesus imitated the practices of his predecessors and added hype, and he became a legend after his death.
I’m by no means an expert but I was briefly obsessed with comparative religion over a decade ago and I don’t think anyone has given a great answer, I believe my answer is correct but I don’t have time for research beyond checking a couple of details.
As a few people have mentioned there is little physical evidence for even the most notable individuals from that time period and it’s not reasonable to expect any for Jesus.
In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus. Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus mentions him twice, once briefly telling the story of his crucifixion and resurrection. The second is a mention in passing when discussing the brother of Jesus delivering criminals to be stoned.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that a Jewish spiritual leader with a name something like Jesus Christ probably existed and that not long after his death miracles are being attributed to him.
It is also worth noting the historical context of the recent emergence of Rabbinical Judaism and the overabundance of other leaders who were claimed to be Messiahs, many of whom we also know about primarily(actually I think only) from Josephus.
The part mentioning Jesus’s crucifixion in Josephus is extremely likely to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.
The idea that the historical figure was known as either ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ is almost 0% given the former is a Greek version of the Aramaic name and the same for the second being the Greek version of Messiah, but that one is even less likely given in the earliest cannonical gospel he only identified that way in secret and there’s no mention of it in the earliest apocrypha.
In many ways, it’s the various differences between the account of a historical Jesus and the various other Messianic figures in Judea that I think lends the most credence to the historicity of an underlying historical Jesus.
One tends to make things up in ways that fit with what one knows, not make up specific inconvenient things out of context with what would have been expected.
In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus
Misinformation.
There’s Tacitus’s Annals (year 117), Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (93-94), Mara bar Serapion’s letter to his son.
Seutonius (Lives of the Twelve Cæsars) and Pliny wrote about the conflict between the Romans and the followers of Christ (or Chrestus) around that era.
You are the one who is doing the misinforming. All of the sources you mention, except Josephus, were written up to more than a century after his supposed existence. With Josephus being written around half a century after his existence.
And as mentioned, the specific quotes from Josephus are of a dubious nature.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here but both Suetonius and Pliny are talking about Christians in the 2nd century, Tacitus speaks about Christ only in the context of Nero blaming Christians for the great fire. These are literary evidence for the existence of Christians in the second century but are not direct literary evidence of the existence of Christ as an individual which was the question I was addressing.
I’d be delighted to be shown to be wrong but I believe my original post stands.