Considering that there is no hard evidence for either, how about a myth?
Was Jesus a Jew OR actually a Hebrew
by *lost* 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Badfish
How about a myth?
Please explain how the most famous man in the history of the world did not exist.
EDIT: Oh, you edited it.
-
tootired2care
Please explain how the most famous man in the history of the world did not exist.
Sure, here is a list of many of the comtemporary writers around Jesus day. N ot one of the writers mentions jesus, nor do they mention the apostles or disciples for that matter. It is curious that there really is not one shred of hard evidence out there to corroborate the bibles account of him.
Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
-
Badfish
And yet virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and although there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity, biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 . page 285
Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
Michael Grant (a classicist ) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton , 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
-
tootired2care
While it's true that virtually all [the majority of] modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, their arguments are based on the bible as the sole means of proof. Given the whoppers like the flood story, or population growth of isrealites, the bibles credibility is questionable.
-
mind blown
If you believe in a Christ. It is fantasy to think Jesus did not nherit his mothers genetics.
According to this the Roman historian Tacitus does mention Christ. Info is limited and he's the only one so far that I found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
Many don't realize there were many claiming to be the messhiah at the time of Christ. He was not the only one.
-
Badfish
According to this Tacitus does mention Christ. Info is limited and he's the only one so far that I found.
What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Key_sources
-
mind blown
As memory serves Josephus is not considered trust worthy documentation by true historians. This is one of many reasons why. Check for yourself.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/11/josephus-a-reliable-source/
-
Phizzy
Ah, the search for the Historical Jesus, as opposed to the Mythical (Gospel) Jesus, what fun ! A journey without end I fear.
As to the thread title question, again, due to lack of hard evidence it is difficult, nay, impossible, to be categorical about Jesus' pedigree.
One interesting point is that if he really was of Nazareth he would have been viewed very differently from the Jews of Jerusalem, by the Jews themselves, and probably by the Romans. "Can anything good come out of Galilee?" seems to have been the attitude.
My personal gut feeling is that such a figure existed, maybe more than one, and the Gospel stories may be drawn from the lives of two or more such men, but small or large details about him cannot be decided due to lack of proof.
-
*lost*
Badfish
excellent, you haven't just given your own opinion, you have given information that has formed that opinion. It makes a massive difference.
Phizzy
that's where I am going. A cultural distiction. If he wasn't form the same social hierachy, (compare modern elite, politics, religion, midset etc.)
That distinction is important, relevant to the history of the generations of society, religion, poilitics etc.
Why was Jesus sent (keep it Biblical people, cos that's what the story is)
To shepherd, as with the other Patriachs/Prophets .... the people had gone away off the path and away form God.