Existence of the "historical Jesus" increasingly questioned by scholars

[Atreus21]

The confusion over the historical nature of Jesus speaks to a bigger issue in history, that the historical details of many well known events is without a lot of support. Try reading about famous medieval battles sometime. We learn that brave Sir Hurtsalot leading 5000 knights beat the crap out of noble Lord Plushbottom and his 20,000 archers at the battle of Swampgassy in 803AD leading to the new Bronchial dynasty. The account of battle will include blow by blow action until Sir Hurtsalot severs the neck of his opponent. Then we read that, well, historians don't know whether the battle was fought in England or northern France, that the armies might have numbered 200 or 2,000 and that Sir Hurtolot might have been the king we know as Ælfrǣd the Odd but it might really have been a peasant uprising and it clearly couldn't have happened prior to 850 as the hula bow hadn't been invented yet. Authentic contempory paintings of the battle date from the 1700s and show Italian castles as a backdrop to the suspiciously Hussian looking combatants.

This is true.

 

[IronWing]

Wikipedia is your friend.

You brought it up as a point of argument. So tell us about it and how it relates to the point you are trying to make.

 

[doubledeluxe]

I read a few history books about medieval Europe when I lived there and have seen the tapestries and paintings they hang to immortalize these battles.

What's a good example of a famous fake one?

 

[Texashiker]

Rob and Texas appear to have been raised by wolves. How in the world can you two be so stupid?

No matter what evidence is presented it will be rejected.

There are separate accounts of the existence of Christ - Josephus and the Quran. Both have shown to be accurate on other events.

How can we say Josephus was right about everything else, but wrong on Christ?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Because we have proof of his existence in the historical record.

We have second hand accounts of his existence. Josephus wrote about Jesus, and the Quran talks about Jesus.

This is the same standard of proof used to prove other figures existed.

That doesn't 'prove' any of the story of jesus. It is evidence he may have existed. I think it is fair to ask for evidence above and beyond when the claims of the figure go above and beyond.

We are comfortable with the story of Julius Caesar because it is in line with normal expectations. I think we'd all want more proof to believe Julius Caesar was the son of god and performed miracles like raising the dead or resurrecting from the dead himself.

And even if you believe a second hand historical account is all that is needed to believe in such miraculous stories, why do you disregard the other religions that have the same thing going for them?

 

[doubledeluxe]

Josephus was born after Jesus died. Its not a first hand account

In fact all the historians alive during Jesus life never mentioned him

 

[doubledeluxe]

The Quran is written 600-650 years after Jesus

 

[doubledeluxe]

Honestly you should stop posting. You're wasting everyone's time with your ignorance.

 

[Texashiker]

You brought it up as a point of argument. So tell us about it and how it relates to the point you are trying to make.

Lets use the judicial system as an example.

Christ is accused of never existing. The defense calls in two witnesses, Josephus and the Quran.

As with any witness there is going to be differences in the story, but the central story stays the same. With the Quran and Josephus, both confirm Jesus did exist.

There are subtle differences, such as muslims not believing Christ was crucified. But then we call in historical facts and the Roman history for crucifixion. The Romans crucified a lot of people before and after Christ.

So we can say yes, Jesus existed, and he was probably crucified.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No matter what evidence is presented it will be rejected.

There are separate accounts of the existence of Christ - Josephus and the Quran. Both have shown to be accurate on other events.

How can we say Josephus was right about everything else, but wrong on Christ?

Funny how you are so very willing to cite the quran to help your case in arguing for christianity. But so quick to dismiss other parts of it that would make mohammad the prophet of god or worship allah. There are accounts of mohammad existing. Isn't that all you require to know christianity and jesus are true and real, and the miraculous stories in the bible are true as well?

 

[soulcougher73]

Because mainstream Christianity says there is a Hell people suffer in, and I had to look into the Bible to see what words they were translating, and "Sheol" and "Hades" doesn't mean a place of fire and torment.

That is good that you researched that. Did you research the rest of mainstream Christanity to see if the translations stacked up after 1000s of years of translations?

 

[Texashiker]

Josephus was born after Jesus died. Its not a first hand account

I never said Josephus was a first hand account.

Learn to read.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets use the judicial system as an example.

Christ is accused of never existing. The defense calls in two witnesses, Josephus and the Quran.

As with any witness there is going to be differences in the story, but the central story stays the same. With the Quran and Josephus, both confirm Jesus did exist.

There are subtle differences, such as muslims not believing Christ was crucified. But then we call in historical facts and the Roman history for crucifixion. The Romans crucified a lot of people before and after Christ.

So we can say yes, Jesus existed, and he was probably crucified.

Actually in the judicial system both witnesses' testimony would be ruled inadmissible because it is hearsay.

lol.

 

[IronWing]

I read a few history books about medieval Europe when I lived there and have seen the tapestries and paintings they hang to immortalize these battles.

What's a good example of a famous fake one?

The wiki entry on the Battle of Hastings provides a good account of the difficulty of teasing out facts from the noise concerning one of the most famous battles in European history. Note the mix of the vague and the detailed. Note that I'm not saying that the wiki account is fake; I'm saying that it highlights the difficulty in establishing what the facts are and what evidence is reliable.

 

[Retro Rob]

For pretty much everything in history you have to make a judgment call. Even events with widespread independent accounting could be distorted. Hell, there are frequently disagreements on what exactly happened in events that are occurring RIGHT NOW, and obviously our standards of account are infinitely better than those of the Roman Empire.

The more independent accounts of something the more likely it is to be accurate, but of course it's no guarantee. I don't think that means that all things mentioned in the past are equally likely, however.

Not gonna argue this, because what you say here is much more interesting:

First, the presence of historical figures in the bible doesn't really mean a lot as to whether or not the central fantastical claims it makes happened. More importantly though, if you reject something in the past but then as more evidence comes to light change your mind that's not an indictment of your process, that's a point in its favor.

Woah up there, I never said that everything automatically is true. But if there is a reasonable amount of credibility behind the account itself, then you decide if its trustworthy or not since miracles etc, are not works of mortal men given that we cannot travel back to the past and have an incomplete knowledge of natures laws.

Its up to you, basically.

 

[soulcougher73]

Lets use the judicial system as an example.

Christ is accused of never existing. The defense calls in two witnesses, Josephus and the Quran.

As with any witness there is going to be differences in the story, but the central story stays the same. With the Quran and Josephus, both confirm Jesus did exist.

There are subtle differences, such as muslims not believing Christ was crucified. But then we call in historical facts and the Roman history for crucifixion. The Romans crucified a lot of people before and after Christ.

So we can say yes, Jesus existed, and he was probably crucified.

So were going to raise a guy from the dead and ask him about someone who died before he was even born and look at a book that was written hundreds of years after Jesus died as proof in our judicial system?

/facepalm

 

[doubledeluxe]

That battle is really 3 battles with the last one involving at least three civilizations. Considering the events of those three battles I'm surprised we know as much.

What I would love to know is the truth about the champion battle at the battle of the bridge. The numbers of dead at the hands of the viking hero sound too good yo be true.

 

[thraashman]

Honestly you should stop posting. You're wasting everyone's time with your ignorance.

Since when has that EVER stopped him?

 

[SlowSpyder]

So were going to raise a guy from the dead and ask him about someone who died before he was even born and look at a book that was written hundreds of years after Jesus died as proof in our judicial system?

/facepalm

I think it's funny how the part of the quran that says jesus existed is true to him, that's evidence. The parts where it says mohammad is allah's prophet, obviously not, those parts are to be dismissed.

 

[Retro Rob]

That is good that you researched that. Did you research the rest of mainstream Christanity to see if the translations stacked up after 1000s of years of translations?

Thousands of years of translations is what refines translating because you can compare them with the closest original copies [the originals are long gone] and see the errors, and correct them.

Simple.

Translations are not translations of translations, but I guess you knew that.

 

[fskimospy]

Not gonna argue this, because what you say here is much more interesting:

Woah up there, I never said that everything automatically is true. But if there is a reasonable amount of credibility behind the account itself, then you decide if its trustworthy or not since miracles etc, are not works of mortal men given that we cannot travel back to the past and have an incomplete knowledge of natures laws.

Its up to you, basically.

I agree that it's up to you! I am certainly no expert on the topic, but from what I had read it seems more likely than not that Jesus existed as a historical figure in some way. Maybe that assumption is changing these days, but I certainly don't know.

I would say that for myself the further a story deviates from how we know the world functions, the more evidence it requires. (the whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence thing) That Julius Caesar was a good general who conquered a bunch of territory and killed a lot of people? I'd believe that fairly easily. Magical parting of the red sea? Going to need some more backup for that.

 

[thraashman]

Lets use the judicial system as an example.

Christ is accused of never existing. The defense calls in two witnesses, Josephus and the Quran.

As with any witness there is going to be differences in the story, but the central story stays the same. With the Quran and Josephus, both confirm Jesus did exist.

There are subtle differences, such as muslims not believing Christ was crucified. But then we call in historical facts and the Roman history for crucifixion. The Romans crucified a lot of people before and after Christ.

So we can say yes, Jesus existed, and he was probably crucified.

If the judicial system worked even remotely as poorly as this it would be the most corrupt system in history. That's like you saying you claiming OJ murdered his ex wife because you heard about it a lot on the news is enough to convict him of murdering his ex wife.

 

[Thebobo]

Rob and Texas appear to have been raised by wolves. How in the world can you two be so stupid?

Wrong TH was raised by Chickens

 

[Franz316]

The problem most don't realize is the new testament was written 100-300+ years after Jesus had already died. It wasn't written by those that knew him.

I thought this was pretty much common knowledge among religious folks but I guess not. I'm sure the fact the gospels were neither written by those apostles nor anywhere near the time of Jesus would cause some people to think twice. If you look at the history of Christianity, it's pretty obvious they were just making it up as they went along. A ton of stuff was just conjured up from 400-1500 and people today use it as the foundation of their faith.

 

[soulcougher73]

Thousands of years of translations is what refines translating because you can compare them with the closest original copies [the originals are long gone] and see the errors, and correct them.

So you did then? I mean you said you did with the Hell bit so logically i figured youd question the rest of the bible? Or was that part scary so you wanted to make sure it was accurate?

And im assuming you contacted the author and church to let them know they translated it wrong and there is no such thing as hell?