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

by nicolaou 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  PSacramento

  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!

  Again, I am not sure what your point us Bro, we are talking about how historians and writers wrote in those days, that was the writing style.

  Heck in Dawkins admits that Jesus probably existed.

  Again, from what I have read by historians and scholars, the existence of Jesus in terms of HISTORICITY is widely accepted.

  Historical evidence is as high if not higher as the vast majority of historical figures of even greater caliber ( social position of the time) than Him.

  I don't recall ANY writings ( from Jesus's time) that actually calling into question the EXISTENCE of Jesus.

  Are there?
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Lucian of Samosata was satirist not a historian.

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

  Suetonius was a historian, and he mentions those pain in the neck Christians in his history of Claudius.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christ

  Claudius was emperor in the 40s and 50s. That is pretty darned close to the time that Jesus is said to have lived, until the 30s. Already he had a following that was annoying the Emperor through their refusal to worship him.
• 

  besty

  hope Leo doesn't mind me reposting a PM she sent me a while back:

  I don't think I have posted any detailed threads for or against the existence of a historical Jesus; I am somewhat agnostic on the subject, although I lean towards Wells' assessment (against the mythicists) that while the gospels are literary compositions with the bulk of their narrative content being "fiction" (informed to some extent by mythic tropes and to a greater extent through haggadaic OT exegesis), there probably was a historical figure named Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem at the time of Pontius Pilate's tenure. The synoptic sayings tradition in particular cannot be reduced to the mythicist schemes (what does the ethical/moral teaching have to do with the Hellenistic "savior god" mysteries?) and Paul shows some close familiarity with this sayings tradition. I think the best explanation for this is that the teaching has nothing to do with the "gospel of the cross", preceding it as a reflection of the teaching of a historical Jesus and with the kergyma of Jesus as "savior" arising after his death (in part through an exegesis of the Suffering Servant songs in Deutero-Isaiah) as a rationalization of the unexpected execution of the apostles' teacher. The gospels (aside from the Gospel of Thomas) represent a latter stage when the teaching (variously interpreted and modified by the different evangelists) has combined with the "gospel of the cross", especially prominent in the western Pauline branch of Christianity (where the ethical teaching has receded dramatically in the face of the personal role of Jesus as Lord and savior). The Jewish-Christian branch in the east, particularly represented by Peter and James (and reflected in such first-century writings as MATTHEW and the DIDACHE and such second-century writings as the ASCENTS OF JAMES and the KERGYMA PETROU), continued to stress the moral/ethical teaching and its halakhic value. The early gnostic branch of the south (particularly in Samaria and Egypt, but also in Syria), on the other hand, made Jesus a Savior by virtue of his teaching, i.e. esoteric gnosis.
  
  I have some threads I have done in the past on the historicity of the gospel narratives (such as on the stories of Jesus' nativity, the 40-days temptation in the wilderness, the stories about Judas Iscariot, the trial scene with Pontius Pilate, etc.), but I'm not sure if that is what you meant. In short, the bulk of the stories are composed out of material from the OT, or turn parables (with their latent hyperbole) into miracle stories, or represent theological reworkings of possible historical stories. In general, the appearance seems to be that Jesus' later followers knew very little about Jesus' birth and childhood and very little about his trial and execution. This actually is to be expected since these followers were not around when Jesus was born and according to the gospels themselves, they all fled when Jesus was arrested. On the other hand, they seem to be very familiar with the teaching and that is what made the impression. What I should point out however is that I believe that many scholars' attempts to reconstruct who the historical Jesus "really was" and what he believed are illusory. Each scholar constructs a Jesus in his own image. I have my own thoughts on what might be more probable than other schemes (such as I favor a more apocalyptic Jesus than JD Crossan allows), but in the end it is all speculation.
• 

  Room 215

  We really only know of Socrates because of Plato, I daresay few if any have ever called his existence into question.
• 

  donuthole

  In fairness the OP was asking for sources within Jesus' lifetime. Jesus did not come from a notable background, his public ministry was very short and limited, and he was executed as a criminal. I would say this is why we do not have writings during the lifetime of any number of people of his day. It was only in death that he really became someone of note and thus we have writings within decades testifying to him.
• 

  undercover

  I would say this is why we do not have writings during the lifetime of any number of people of his day. It was only in death that he really became someone of note and thus we have writings within decades testifying to him.

  So when the carpenter's son performed miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, no one alive at that time period thought it noteworthy enough to write it down somewhere?

  The Bethlehem Times missed the perfect oppurtunity to plug it's paper and town: "Local Man Heals Sick Girl - Father Ecstatic" or "Man Raised From the Dead by Local Carpenter" or maybe "Brawl Erupts at Wedding - Centurians Cite Too Much Wine Made Available to Guests"
• 

  unshackled

  The point is that the historical accuracy of Jesus actually existing is shady at best.

  But IF he did exist...how does that somehow conclude that the biblical description of Jesus is accurate? Did he really walk on water? Lay dead for 3 days then resurrect himself? Heck...did he really knock up his own mother to give birth to himself?
  
  What is more likely: those things actually happened? OR a regular dude that stirred up a small group was later used for works of fiction and embellishment?
• 

  diamondiiz

  IMO, Jesus existen just not Jesus of the bible. Had Russell not had a publishing company and no one else wrote anything about him and wts came into existence years after his death we would believe today that Russell did foretell 1914 because God guided him. I'm sure we would believe many other stories of great Russell that would be embellished based on nonsense the he taught. Likewise Jesus was most likely a man, a leader of a sect where years later people embellished on the stories and made him great. Jesus story affected humanity on the same level as that of Mohammad and yet I don't believe Mohammad went to heaven and back or any other nonsense Islam teaches about him. Jews were supposedly educated bunch, so I assume there must have been more than just a few people who were able to read and write and with the supposed miracles that Jesus performed, One would imagine the great multitude that followed Jesus would have wrote something, somewheres about the miracles they have witnessed instead of handful of followers writing stories decades if not a century after Jesus' death. Seeing dead rise would surely prompt some to write this event outside of the bible from an eye witness account. Feeding thousands of people with nothing more than few loafs surely would have prompted at least few of these jews to pen something down, I can't imagine that all of these thousands weren't able to preserve their experience in some way. Unfortunately, all we have is the bible stories and no proof outside of it.
• 

  donuthole

  @Undercover - There was no Bethlehem times. Maybe next you'll wonder why no one Twittered about Jesus' miracles or why it wasn't on Judea CNN. :-)

  Jesus miracles are attested to not just by Christians, first orally, then in writing, but by Jewish opponents in their own literature. What I'm saying is that we don't have writings from the brief window of time that he is said to have engaged in miracle working
• 

  Star tiger

  Greetings,

  As Thomas Paine said I do not believe in hearsay evidence, if he existed, he was probably a very good man, with a reputation embellished throughout the ages with the miracles made up to ensure the story continued!

  Star Tiger