Why the stunning lack of accurate, historical evidence for Jesus Christ?

by nicolaou 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Here you go Nico:

    Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus) [Paperback]

    Robert E. Van Voorst (Author) And there is quite a bit of HISTORICAL evidence for Jesus, more so than the likes of Socrates for example. And more "reliable" in terms of Historicity - It ( stories about Jesus) was written closer to his death than the vast majority of writings we have for other historical figures, even kings like alexander for example. A good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

  • agonus
    agonus

    And yet, in spite of it all, Jesus Christ remains one of the most compelling personages in all of human history. No less a genius than Albert Einstein declared the "luminous figure of the Nazarene" as far too compelling a character to have been a work of fiction.

    But... could he have been? Was it all a falsehood? Or has some myth been grafted onto a historical but "ordinary" man?

    Or is it possible that somehow it was actually true?

    I don't know. To be honest, I think there may be a deeper mystery at work here, one that may be diminished by a relentless pursuit of cold hard facts that may not even be attainable. Does a film critic who deconstructs "Citizen Kane" shot-by-shot enhance one's appreciation for the "greatest film ever made" or reduce it to an academic exercise? I guess it depends on the individual.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Hi Blues. Jesus was supposed to be the long awaited MESSIAH! The SON OF GOD no less! Surely this most important of all men would have made a bit more of a dent in the historical records, especially (as leaving intimates) he did such striking things as walk on water and raise the dead!!

    Records that we have of his "adversaries" to state that he was accused of doing sorcery and such things.

    Jesus was NOT viewed as the messiah from sources other than Christian ones.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Since we mentioned Julius Caeser, the OTHER "JC", LOL !

    Of Julius Caesar's: The Gallic Wars,10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph.

    There is no doubt that Caeser existsed, as emperor of Rome and evenbeofre that, he is spoken about from multiple sources, as was Alexander and pretty much almost every reknown King.

    The fact that we have SO MUCH info and so many manuscripts about Jesus, far more than we have about Caeser and Alexander, two fo the greatest emperors EVER, is quite amazing since he was, in terms of history, simply a crucified Nazarene.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    Pliny, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, all these individuals were born after Jesus was supposed to have died and all of them were describing what Christians believed, they were not suggesting that those beliefs were true. Seutonius was also born after Christ supposedly died and his one line mentioning 'Chrestus' is not a proven reference to Jesus.

    Who's left? Josephus? I dare ya . . .

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Not sure your point Nic...most record we have of historicla figures were written by people that did NOT know them directly.

    And what we have of people that KNOW those people directly are, typically, biased, yes?

    We are NOT talking about whether people writing about Jesus were right in their view of Jesus, but that they WERE talking about him as if he DID exist, right?

    As for Josephus, even removing thet quite obvious altered parts in ONE of his writings, you still have what is left over that is ACCEPTED by the majority of historians and you have his other writing too, yes?

    The Jesus/James reference of Josephus is generally considered reliable, supporting the historicity of Jesus. It is found in the Antiquities, the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9.

    And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. [ 8 ]

  • donuthole
    donuthole

    @PSacramento

    The book "Jesus in the Talmud" is pretty interesting as it contains references to Jesus from theological opponents of the Christian movement. It even testifies to his miracles, though attributing to sorcery and the blasphemous use of the divine name.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou
    As for Josephus, even removing thet quite obvious altered parts in ONE of his writings,

    glad we're agreed on that at least

    you still have what is left over that is ACCEPTED by the majority of historians and you have his other writing to, yes?

    How can a rational person accept The Antiquities of the Jews as being based only on historical events. Right in the preface Josephus says that the history he is writing is based on Hebrew scriptures and religious books. So it's no surprise that Antiquities not only mentions Jesus but also describes God's creation of the earth, Adam & Eve, Noah & the flood, the Tower of Babel, the 10 Plagues, and the parting of the sea.

    Hardly historically acurate!

  • unshackled
    unshackled

    Lucian of Samosata was satirist not a historian.

    Tacitus wrote that the belief about Christus is a "pernicious superstition."

    In the preface of Antiquities Josephus says that the "history" he is writing about is based on Hebrew scriptures and religious books. Not actual history. SO not only does he mention Jesus, he also recounts the creation story, Adam & Eve, Noah and the Flood, Tower of Babel and other myths.

    I got it though....the Shroud of Turin must be proof!

    EDIT: Nic, you beat me to it. Repeated the same about the preface.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    Even the earliest Jewish anti-Christian polemics never denied Jesus' existence. That is, in poker parlance, a major tell.

    If he didn't exist, that would have been the easiest and best argument for them to make, and they never made it.

    The same goes for the Romans, they were killing Christians under Nero. It was a persecuted sect. We do not read of any Roman arguments that he did not exist in extant writings.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit