Was Jesus a real Historically proven Person ?

[markearthling]

Interested to know what others think about this.

[Brainteaserfan]

Interested to know what others think about this.

Yes, I believe that he was. The question is whether or not he was a fraud.

 

Remember, you are asking this in a science forum, which is generally leaning atheist or at least non-Christian. Not that that is bad, but keep it in mind.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Moontanman]

Interested to know what others think about this.

 

 

It's really difficult to get a handle on this due to the number of gospels that were rejected, something like 16+, from the New Testament by the Beginning of the Catholic church. So many ideas, were lost or suppressed I'm not sure it's possible to really say yes or no to this with any real confidence.

[pwagen]

It seems that there is a lack of contemporary evidence to suggest most, or any, of the events in the new testament. Which, in turn, would suggest that the historical Jesus never existed.

[insane_alien]

its very likely that there was somebody called jesus (it was a common name at the time and is still commonly used in some demographics) who was a preacher (again, a common theme for the time) who was crucified (again common)

 

did he perform all the miracles as described in the bible? no.

 

the miracles in the bible smack of somebody seeing something they didn't understand and exagerating the events as us humans are prone to do.

 

its likely that more than one or two are entirely fictional.

[mississippichem]

There were many jewish messiahs around that time. The jewish people were quite upset about roman control and there were many spiritual leader types that rose up to the challenge.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a guy named jesus from nazareth who was one of these messiah types or a jewish spiritual leader.

[Marat]

There is a Roman historical document (is it the record left by the historian Josephus?) which refers to Jesus as having been an actual historical figure. Since the writers of this source would have had no motivation to lie to support a Christian story, there probably was some prominent person among the many itinerant religious preachers of that time and place who was called Jesus. Most likely the Jesus who has come down in the New Testament stories, written many decades to a century after his supposed death, rolled a number of historical figures into one composite figure (as happened with the supposedly single author of the Odyssey and Illiad, Homer, for example), and then added some mythological adonrments to make a better story.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, both Josephus and Tacitus mention the existence of Jesus in their history books, although unlikely that either knew Jesus personally. The earliest extant records come from Paul's letters, which came perhaps twenty years after Jesus's death, although Paul mentions very few details about Jesus's life apart from his death and resurrection.

[StringJunky]

Jesus is a prominent figure in Islam as well; are there historical documents in that quarter?

 

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

 

Are Islam and Christianity drawn from a common religion that diverged?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes. Christianity is drawn from Judaism, and Islam draws from both. However, Islam began some six hundred years after Jesus, so what they knew of Jesus was from the gospels and writings circulating at the time, not any eyewitness accounts.

[pwagen]

There is a Roman historical document (is it the record left by the historian Josephus?) which refers to Jesus as having been an actual historical figure.

Josephus was born a few years after Jesus' alleged crucifixion, and didn't write his "witness account" of Jesus around 60 years later.

 

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

You're probably right about the added mythological adornments. A lot, if not all, of the myth behind Jesus comes from earlier mythology.

 

http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/The-Jesus-Myth.html

 

 

[StringJunky]

Yes. Christianity is drawn from Judaism, and Islam draws from both. However, Islam began some six hundred years after Jesus, so what they knew of Jesus was from the gospels and writings circulating at the time, not any eyewitness accounts.

 

Gotcha, thank's.

[Hal.]

A 1200 year old Irish illustration of Jesus .

 

 

 

This image is allowed to be publicly shown .

[Brainteaserfan]

A 1200 year old Irish illustration of Jesus .

 

 

 

This image is allowed to be publicly shown .

 

I'm confused..... how does that relate?

 

1200 years ago was a long time after Christ.

[markearthling]

Interesting stuff above especially what was said about Josephus.

 

This is a serious subject but then I thought

 

on a lighter note

 

In the Life of Brian

 

Brians' mom said he was a VERY naughty boy !

[Hal.]

I'm confused..... how does that relate?

 

1200 years ago was a long time after Christ.

 

There are not a lot of extant images of Jesus Christ . The image above is one of the oldest of him in the western world . This image is independent of anything that has followed in 1200 years , meaning it contains no influences after the year of approximately 800 A.D. . It is an independent bridge to the past and a small snippet of evidence . In the history of time 800 years after Christ is not a lot of it . Christianity spread into Ireland in approximately 430 A.D. .

[Brainteaserfan]

There are not a lot of extant images of Jesus Christ . The image above is one of the oldest of him in the western world . This image is independent of anything that has followed in 1200 years , meaning it contains no influences after the year of approximately 800 A.D. . It is an independent bridge to the past and a small snippet of evidence . In the history of time 800 years after Christ is not a lot of it . Christianity spread into Ireland in approximately 430 A.D. .

Thanks! I wish that was included in the original post.

[pwagen]

There are not a lot of extant images of Jesus Christ . The image above is one of the oldest of him in the western world . This image is independent of anything that has followed in 1200 years , meaning it contains no influences after the year of approximately 800 A.D.

800 years is a long time for misinformation to spread. If it's an accurate picture, why does he have a crown when he was poor? Same thing with his clothes, it looks like an expensive robe, not something a carpenter's son would wear.

 

Why were there no images from the time he was alive? If he was a person who walked around and healed cripplings or raising people from the dead, why didn't officials take any note of him whatsoever?

 

 

It is an independent bridge to the past and a small snippet of evidence . In the history of time 800 years after Christ is not a lot of it . Christianity spread into Ireland in approximately 430 A.D. .

I disagree with your conclusion then. If christianity spread all the way to Ireland (which is a LONG way from the Middle East) in 400 years, imagine how much might have happened to it in twice that time.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why were there no images from the time he was alive? If he was a person who walked around and healed cripplings or raising people from the dead, why didn't officials take any note of him whatsoever?

In the time he was alive, there were a couple dozen other dudes who did similar things. Roving magician and prophet was not an uncommon trade.

 

You can see evidence of this in Acts, where Paul enters the Temple and causes a disturbance. The official who arrives asks, "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt?" Paul has to explain who he is. The writings of Josephus do indeed record a guy called "the Egyptian" who acted like a prophet and eventually caused a small revolt against the Romans.

 

Jesus caused no revolt and surrounded himself with mostly illiterate disciples, so the lack of portraits isn't entirely surprising.

[insane_alien]

Why were there no images from the time he was alive? If he was a person who walked around and healed cripplings or raising people from the dead, why didn't officials take any note of him whatsoever?

 

Well, the probalby had a number of documents relating to him, particularly those ordering his crucifiction.

 

however, you have to consider how rare it is to have documents last 2000 odd years.

 

the roman empire was huge even by modern standards. they likely had one hell of a beurocracy and produced a mountain of paper work of orders, meeting minutes, reports, correspondence etc.

 

very very very little of this remains. It would not surprise me if there were portraits of jesus produced during his life and that they have just been lost over time to fire, flooding and general aging.

[michel123456]

This (christian) site seems well documented. Entitled "physical description of Jesus"

[Marat]

A few years ago a sarcophagus was discovered among several others in the same grave with names on them suggesting that they may have been those of Jesus and his family. However, the significance of this find has been challenged on two grounds: first, that the collection of names found together was sufficiently common for it not to be significant; and second, that the names could have been added long after the sacrophagi were made in order to dress them up as significant Christian artifacts.

 

Perhaps someone can find the exact web reference, since it was a major story for a while.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here's the story:

 

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1593893,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1704299,00.html

 

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

[Hal.]

There are not a lot of extant images of Jesus Christ . The image above is one of the oldest of him in the western world . This image is independent of anything that has followed in 1200 years , meaning it contains no influences after the year of approximately 800 A.D. .

800 years is a long time for misinformation to spread. If it's an accurate picture, why does he have a crown when he was poor? Same thing with his clothes, it looks like an expensive robe, not something a carpenter's son would wear.

 

Why were there no images from the time he was alive? If he was a person who walked around and healed cripplings or raising people from the dead, why didn't officials take any note of him whatsoever?

The picture is the image that was portrayed of Jesus in writings of 800 A.D. . I agree that it is a lottery as to whether Jesus looked like this or not . This was the then current image that Christians used as an illustration of Jesus in spreading their word . I think that the religious orders who made the image wanted to make an excellent piece of literature for the time and this was only one part to a book of writings . http://en.wikipedia....i/Book_of_Kells

 

Take a piece of paper and draw a picture . Do you think that will last 800 years ? At some time somebody may take the original and make a copy to represent it which is an approximation of the original . Possibly , with the image of Jesus , an approximation of an approximation a few times over and slight changes to a story with exaggerations for effect and there is what you see .

 

It is an independent bridge to the past and a small snippet of evidence . In the history of time 800 years after Christ is not a lot of it . Christianity spread into Ireland in approximately 430 A.D. .

I disagree with your conclusion then. If christianity spread all the way to Ireland (which is a LONG way from the Middle East) in 400 years, imagine how much might have happened to it in twice that time.

Do you think Christianity was not in Ireland in 430 A.D. because of the distance involved and the time taken to travel it ? Ireland was on the fringes of the Roman empire . They ruled part of Britain and did not come to Ireland in great numbers with only possible minor landings that are still being speculated upon . Romans travelled to Britain and their was knowledge of Ireland's existence . Trade existed between Ireland and the middle east by sea . The actual person who spread christianity into Ireland is a welsh slave .

Edited June 13, 2011 by Hal.

[markearthling]

Some very cogent arguments/info above.

 

On the subject regarding the authorities at the time of Jesus

( both religous jews/rulers from various preisthoods and roman authorities)

it seems likely that the roman authorities would have been the ones

to keep any records about jesus seizure/crucifixion although

I think Jesus was seized in the garden of Gethsamane by jewish

guards from the local temple (if I have this right).

 

He was then taken for an audience with a jewish high preist

and others to try him and then later taken to the roman

governor Pilate for an audience to determine his fate.

Pilate could not find any fault with the prisoner

but as the jewish crowd were baying for his blood

Pilate capitulated and with a symbolic gesture of

the public washing of his hands for all the crowd to see

he publically absolved himself from the responsibility

of what he could see as the killing of an innocent man

(he washed his hands of the responsibility).

 

Supposedly the jewish crowd were given the choice

of release of a prisoner and the choice was between

Jesus and Barrabas (a known criminal).

The crowd chose Barrabas.

 

On the subject of any records that might have been made back

then one might expect that the romans were likely to do this

and of course there would be a high likelihood such

documents have been lost over such a length of time.

Although as Pilate may have considered this

a distastefull (he had to wash his hands of Jesus and

supposedly his wife warned him to have nothing to do

against that righteous man) affair is it possible that

Pilate ensured that no roman records should be made

or kept (possibly thinking about his reputation?).

 

The romans could also have kept records of their

crucifixions but again perhaps this was

expunged from any record for the same reason.

 

In the case of the Jewish leaders and religious people

Jesus was a bit of a threat to their religious

power base and position

(apparently Jesus was not the only itinerant preacher

who had raised their ire before and possibly not the last)

his position/actions seemed a direct challenge to

their authority/establishment.

His teaching seemed to suggest he thought himself

the Christ/Messiah prophesied long ago

in the hebrew religious documents/literature

and his seeming claim to be the Son of God

was considered by the various priesthoods

as being outright blasphemy

(a position worthy of the death penalty).

 

The Jewish leaders/priesthoods hated Jesus,

his position, his following and the reports

of miracles that came in

(perhaps they were a little scared of him who knows).

 

If they accepted him as their newly identified/arrived

Christ/Messiah they would also probably

be obliged to make him King (of the Jews).

Jesus was as such hated on many fronts by the

Jews.

 

They wanted him dead quickly and expunged from the

record as efficiently as possible.

It doesn't seem likely that Jewish authorities

would bother making any lasting records

of Jesus life/activities etc for the above reasons.

 

It is possible that someone may have bothered

to make a picture/portrait of Jesus in his time

or perhaps just a symbolic image like the old one

above. However one wonders if people would

have thought to do that way back then ?

 

On the very old image of Jesus above

I also wondered why he might be portrayed

wearing a crown and rich clothing (robe) ?

 

Jesus was a religious/spiritual figure

who was venerated by many as being

or existing at a very high plane or level

(in heaven he supposedly sits on the

right hand of God / Lord of Lords

and King of Kings).

By some he was/is considered to be

the Son of God and also

possibly by some as the true Jewish

Christ or Messiah and hence

King of the Jews.

 

So possibly Jesus was being portrayed

as a richly dressed King in that old image

above (open to discussion).