Did Jesus Christ exist at all?

by Tyler 83 Replies latest watchtower bible

hooberus

no secular documents exist to prove the existence of any of the apostles either

James is discussed by Josephus a non-christain historian. In addition to the writings of the apostles, we have accounts from some of their disciples.
Tyler

Ah! I've just seen the above! Well done Hooberus!
On the Bible’s evidence, again this is another debate, but suffice to say that the canonical bible is doctored and bias, and compiled in the third century by a dubiously motivated politician.
I’ve already mentioned Josephus.
Tackitus was writing around 112 ce. He makes a glaring mistake when referring to Pilate. He calls him ‘procurator’ when Pilate was in fact a ‘Prefect’. This suggests that Tackitus was relating what he had heard, not what was official. It is the earliest reference there is, which is odd seeing as Jesus is purported to have caused such an impact in Judean society. 112 CE is plenty of time for an Urban Myth to gain momentum and be referred to by anyone who doesn’t check their origin.
Aside from that there are the Gnostic texts. Plenty of references to Jesus the Christ there. Only problem with them is they are paganistic fiction. Mmm. Now then, if the earliest texts in history refer to Christ being a fictitious, symbolic being, and only latter texts refer to Christ being a historical character in spite of there being no contemprary evidence for his existence, what is the logical conclusion to draw?
Over to you.
ThiChi

Suetonius: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE. He wrote to "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." This passage is often used to support the historicity of Jesus, assuming that Jesus' title was misspelled. But Chrestus was in fact a common Greek name. It is likely that the reference is to a Jewish agitator in Rome by that name.
Jewish literature: The Talmud states that Jesus lived in the 2 nd century BCE. However, this passage itself dates from the early 2 nd century CE
The Gospel of Q: This is believed by many theologians to be a collection of sayings, "which included moral teachings, prophetic admonitions and controversy stories, plus a few miracles and anecdotes." These had been transmitted orally and are generally believed to have been first written down by his followers circa 50 CE.
The vast majority of historians and theologians have always believed in the reality of Jesus' life. The skeptical view ..."has always been held by a small minority of investigators, usually 'outsiders'." (i.e. non-theologians). It was a group of French philosophers during the French Revolution in the late 18th century who first suggested that Jesus was a mythical character. (The French? lol!)
ThiChi
Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:
The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!
Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information:
As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:
An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
An inscription that mentions Pilate.
Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.
From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]
To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him!
Tyler

What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him!

I have to disagree with this conclusion. Most historical characters existance on our history have no alterior motives for being believed in. You also stated that not much has survived from the first century, when in actual fact, a lot has survived, yet not enough to substanciate Jesus's existance. The Gospels exist in their own circular reality separate to the rest of historical referance.
Your quote above uses all the devious tactics of a cult. Trivialising opposing views, sweeping statements, false analogy, I've run out of key words, but it has them.
hooberus

Tyler said: On the Bible’s evidence, again this is another debate, but suffice to say that the canonical bible is doctored and bias, and compiled in the third century by a dubiously motivated politician.
Even liberals date many New Testament books to the first century. We have numerous manuscripts of the Bible books extant today which date to the second century. Also Church father citations show that the books of the New Testament are first century documents. Also the New Testament books themselves provide evidence that Jesus was a historical person since they were written by different authors and were written during the first century as witnessed by historical persons such as:
Clement of Rome (A.D. 95) who quoted from: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44
Ignatius (A.D. 70-110) who quoted from: Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Collossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, James, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44
hooberus
Tyler said: Tackitus was writing around 112 ce. He makes a glaring mistake when referring to Pilate. He calls him ‘procurator’ when Pilate was in fact a ‘Prefect’. This suggests that Tackitus was relating what he had heard, not what was official. It is the earliest reference there is, which is odd seeing as Jesus is purported to have caused such an impact in Judean society. 112 CE is plenty of time for an Urban Myth to gain momentum and be referred to by anyone who doesn’t check their origin.

Its Tacitus not Tackitus.
Pilate was both a Procurator as well as Prefect.
The Tacitus reference is not the earliest secular witness to Jesus Christ. The following defends the Tacitus reference as well as others.
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html
We conclude that we find three levels of source material:
Highly reliable sources. There are two of these: Tacitus and Josephus.
Moderately reliable sources. We find three: Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian. For the matter of Thallus, please see also our link in our essay to Glenn Miller's essay on that subject, linked in our essay. (We will look at some objections to the Thallus cite.)
Marginally reliable or unreliable sources. Three are in this class: Suetonius, the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud.
Tyler said: Aside from that there are the Gnostic texts. Plenty of references to Jesus the Christ there. Only problem with them is they are paganistic fiction. Mmm. Now then, if the earliest texts in history refer to Christ being a fictitious, symbolic being, and only latter texts refer to Christ being a historical character in spite of there being no contemprary evidence for his existence, what is the logical conclusion to draw?
The earliest witnesses to Jesus Christ are from the biblical books (see above).
Gnostic texts came later.
There is plenty of evidence from the first century to establish the historicity of Jesus Christ (see my posts above).
Mr. Kim

Just reading and taking in information to see where everyone stands. By the way, good points and references.
ThiChi
"""Most historical characters existance on our history have no alterior motives for being believed in""
Not true. To suggest that we have little or records because no confirmation of belief was needed, is stretching it a bit, don’t you think? Religious intentions where mixed with the action of the State, this included every Nation in existence at the time (If you can point to a Nation of Atheists that existed back then, please do).
You want an agenda? How about: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder!
Again, how much information do we have on personages from 1 to 100 AD? Critics have cited that Pilot never existed, and only a simple inscription was found with Pilot’s name... Many Assyrian personages have only been found in the Bible, and now discoveries are being made to confirm these historical persons. So, can we conclude that if the confirmations were not in fact made (to date), that it was false? No for now we know the reality.
I wonder if we will be able to prove your existence in 2,000 years? Who would believe the record of a disgruntled splinter group of the primitive Jehovah’s Witnesses, in the year 2003?
This is all we have:
An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
An inscription that mentions Pilate.
Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.
From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]
ballistic

Although I lost my faith due to being disfellowshipped, I believe in some kind of God and a man called Jesus.

Did Jesus Christ exist at all?

Share this