Was Jesus a real person?

[hypervalent_iodine]

OK, was Jesus a real person ? yes he was.

!

Moderator Note

Yeah, that's not how this works. You make a claim, you support it with evidence. Otherwise your claims are little more than baseless opinions.

 

Do not respond to this modnote in thread.

[Strange]

No a breathing (human) organism.

 

Sometimes a conversation with you is like pushing string or herding cats. IT IS A MYTH.

[Willie71]

Where are these concessions made by the RCC?

 

I don't mean the things they say about him but the actual person called Dionysus.

Have a read.

 

http://vaticanfiles.org/2014/08/

[Ten oz]

Sometimes a conversation with you is like pushing string or herding cats. IT IS A MYTH.

The argument has been made a few times in this thread that most myths are rooted in some truth. While I don't see that argument as being tangible evidence of anything I accept that it does beg to question; could the myth of "Son of Zeus" started as result of a man or men achieving greatness that people then chose to attribute to Zeus? It isn't an unreasonable possibility.

[John Cuthber]

The argument has been made a few times in this thread that most myths are rooted in some truth. While I don't see that argument as being tangible evidence of anything I accept that it does beg to question; could the myth of "Son of Zeus" started as result of a man or men achieving greatness that people then chose to attribute to Zeus? It isn't an unreasonable possibility.

Is it reasonable that anyone did the things that Zeus is famed for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus#Miscellany_on_Zeus

[Robittybob1]

Have a read.

 

http://vaticanfiles.org/2014/08/

I couldn't see any way to say that the authors of the "Vatican Files" have the sanction of the Roman Catholic Church.

So how can you be sure their view is that of the RCC?

 

Originally you said: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-24#entry859168

 

.... The gospels are not history. Even the Roman Catholic Church has backed away from any claims of historical accuracy....

Now that, to my of thinking, is a vastly different claim than saying the Old Testament in historically inaccurate.

The Gospels are just the first 4 books of the New Testament aren't they?

Edited March 21, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Ten oz]

Is it reasonable that anyone did the things that Zeus is famed for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus#Miscellany_on_Zeus

Of course it isn't. I was referencing Dionysus and whether or not his story was inspired by an actual person. I was not implying that any of acts attributed to Zeus may have been real.

 

Back on topic I do not believe that Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead, walked on water, or was the son of God. However I do accept that there is a chance that the story of Jesus is based on some real person who might've lived.

 

I started this thread thinking there was a 50/50 chance that Jesus may have been a real person. I vaguely assumed that because I am not an expert in antiquities or a theologian that there may be compelling evidence I wasn't aware of. Twenty Four pages in and I am starting to think it is more likely that Jesus was entirely made up. The more I researched the more I am surprised by how little evidence there is. The Historisity of Jesus appears to be a house of card where modern historians just base their work of early historians. Go back far enough and the entire story only has biblical sources. Nothing free of magic, propaganda, heavy editing, unknown origin, and etc.

[Robittybob1]

Of course it isn't. I was referencing Dionysus and whether or not his story was inspired by an actual person. I was not implying that any of acts attributed to Zeus may have been real.

 

Back on topic I do not believe that Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead, walked on water, or was the son of God. However I do accept that there is a chance that the story of Jesus is based on some real person who might've lived.

 

I started this thread thinking there was a 50/50 chance that Jesus may have been a real person. I vaguely assumed that because I am not an expert in antiquities or a theologian that there may be compelling evidence I wasn't aware of. Twenty Four pages in and I am starting to think it is more likely that Jesus was entirely made up. The more I researched the more I am surprised by how little evidence there is. The Historisity of Jesus appears to be a house of card where modern historians just base their work of early historians. Go back far enough and the entire story only has biblical sources. Nothing free of magic, propaganda, heavy editing, unknown origin, and etc.

I spent years researching it and it isn't as bad as that.

[Ten oz]

I spent years researching it and it isn't as bad as that.

The non bibical evidence for Jesus that I am aware of:

Tacitus

Josephus

Evidence that Pontius Pilate was real.

 

Tacitus was not contemporary to Jesus. His writting mention Christains and basically defines them as believing in Jesus. Tacitius does not record that a man Jesus' ever necessarily existed. Much more context is needed for Tacitius' brief references to be solid evidence.

 

Josephus' work has been challanged by many as counterfeit. If we accept it as truth what does it really tell us? Josephus wasn't contemporary to Jesus and focus more on Jesus' brother James than Jesus. Josephus' work was written after the Pauline Epistles which make of a huge portion of the New Testament and is understand to have inspired the Gospels. We would need to know Josephus' source of information to really put a value on it.

 

Evidence of Pontius Pilate as evidence of the existence of Jesus is dubious in my opinion. For example Abraham Lincoln was real but that doesn't mean any of the events from "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Killer" are also real. If we had writings from Pontius Pilate saying in first person that he put Jesus to death that would be excellent evidence. That isnt what we have though. Rather we just have evidence that Pontuis Pilate probably existed.

[Acme]

I spent years researching it and it isn't as bad as that.

Oh? But your first post here (#58) says:

... OK I am Christian by nature so my life seems to be based on the fact (by faith) that Jesus was real. OK I do wish there was more proof that would prove it. I find it frustrating that there isn't this perfect rock solid proof. ...

So not only have you made contradictory statements, your 'evidence' is the type of baseless opinion -i.e. faith- mentioned by Hypervalent.

 

All-in-all the facts in the matter of Ten oz's OP question were answered within the first page or two and the rest of the 20+ pages after is just so much repetition of those facts & faithful fluff and its rebuttal.

[Robittybob1]

Oh? But your first post here (#58) says:

 

So not only have you made contradictory statements, your 'evidence' is the type of baseless opinion -i.e. faith- mentioned by Hypervalent.

 

All-in-all the facts in the matter of Ten oz's OP question were answered within the first page or two and the rest of the 20+ pages after is just so much repetition of those facts & faithful fluff and its rebuttal.

Those two statements are complimentary and not contradictory. Ten oz's post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-25#entry859265 read like a summing up and all based on his opinion, so my answer was also based on opinion.

The non bibical evidence for Jesus that I am aware of:

Tacitus

Josephus

Evidence that Pontius Pilate was real.

 

Tacitus was not contemporary to Jesus. His writting mention Christains and basically defines them as believing in Jesus. Tacitius does not record that a man Jesus' ever necessarily existed. Much more context is needed for Tacitius' brief references to be solid evidence.

 

Josephus' work has been challanged by many as counterfeit. If we accept it as truth what does it really tell us? Josephus wasn't contemporary to Jesus and focus more on Jesus' brother James than Jesus. Josephus' work was written after the Pauline Epistles which make of a huge portion of the New Testament and is understand to have inspired the Gospels. We would need to know Josephus' source of information to really put a value on it.

 

Evidence of Pontius Pilate as evidence of the existence of Jesus is dubious in my opinion. For example Abraham Lincoln was real but that doesn't mean any of the events from "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Killer" are also real. If we had writings from Pontius Pilate saying in first person that he put Jesus to death that would be excellent evidence. That isnt what we have though. Rather we just have evidence that Pontuis Pilate probably existed.

You are right it was not writings mentioning Jesus but looking at all events mentioned in Luke and seeing if there was historical evidence for them. In the end I was satisfied.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

"it isn't as bad as that" vs "I find it frustrating" = contradiction.

 

Baseless opinion = worthless to the discussion.

[Robittybob1]

"it isn't as bad as that" vs "I find it frustrating" = contradiction.

 

Baseless opinion = worthless to the discussion.

Of course not.

[Ten oz]

You are right it was not writings mentioning Jesus but looking at all events mentioned in Luke and seeing if there was historical evidence for them. In the end I was satisfied.

So it is as I described? Biblical sources are at the base of the evidence we have.

Go back far enough and the entire story only has biblical sources. Nothing free of magic, propaganda, heavy editing, unknown origin, and etc.

As for Luke it was not written contemporary to Jesus, has unknown authorship, was inspired by Mark which was inspired by the Pauline Epistles, and doesn't seperate fantasy from fact.

[Robittybob1]

 

So it is as I described? Biblical sources are at the base of the evidence we have.

 

As for Luke it was not written contemporary to Jesus, has unknown authorship, was inspired by Mark which was inspired by the Pauline Epistles, and doesn't seperate fantasy from fact.

How would the authors become known? What do you mean by known?

[Ten oz]

How would the authors become known? What do you mean by known?

 

Who wrote Luke?

[Willie71]

I couldn't see any way to say that the authors of the "Vatican Files" have the sanction of the Roman Catholic Church.

So how can you be sure their view is that of the RCC?

 

Originally you said: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-24#entry859168

 

Now that, to my of thinking, is a vastly different claim than saying the Old Testament in historically inaccurate.

The Gospels are just the first 4 books of the New Testament aren't they?

The Pontification Council is one of the highest authorities in the Catholic Church. They directly advise the pope. The article discusses the old and New Testament, both of which are deemed histoically inaccurate, and divine inspiration is questioned based on views on women, and morality, or immorality as it were.

[Robittybob1]

The Pontification Council is one of the highest authorities in the Catholic Church. They directly advise the pope. The article discusses the old and New Testament, both of which are deemed histoically inaccurate, and divine inspiration is questioned based on views on women, and morality, or immorality as it were.

Can you find a reference to the "pontification Council" ? I got a reference to the "Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers" but that doesn't sound like the one you are speaking of.

 

There have been Vatican Councils and Ecumenical Councils.

Any leads?

Who wrote Luke?

Seems like Luke was well known at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke%E2%80%93Acts#Traditional_view_-_Luke_the_physician_as_author

 

 

Traditional view - Luke the physician as author[edit]

The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.[2][3] This Luke is mentioned in Paul's Epistle to Philemon (v.24), and in two other epistles which are traditionally ascribed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).

The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was nearly unanimous in the early Christian church. The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, which is the oldest known manuscript containing the ending of the gospel (dating to around 200 AD), uses the subscription "The Gospel According to Luke". Nearly all ancient sources also shared this theory of authorship—Irenaeus,[4] Tertullian,[5] Clement of Alexandria,[6] Origen, and the Muratorian Canon all regarded Luke as the author of the Luke-Acts. Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer mentions another tradition about authorship.[7]

Edited March 22, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Willie71]

Rob, I think you aren't trying very hard. This is the first entry in my google search:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Council_for_Justice_and_Peace

[Ten oz]

Seems like Luke was well known at the time.

What you quoted is the traditional Christian church view and not the critical view of scholars:

 

" Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view."

"The epistle of Philemon, almost universally accepted as an authentic letter of Paul, merely includes the name "Luke" among other "co-workers" of Paul who are sending greetings to the letter's recipients (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians 4:14, but Colossians is widely believed by New Testament scholars to be not an authentic writing of Paul, but "pseudonymous", i.e., written under a false name.[14] 2 Timothy 4:11 also mentions a "Luke" and refers to him being "with me" but most modern scholars do not accept 2 Timothy as an authentic letter of Paul either.[15]"

 

Authorship of Luke is not clear. Paul's letters are the earliest works scholar agree are authentic and Paul was not contemporary to a living Jesus. There are not any known authentic eye witness sources for Jesus. Paul does claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus post crucifixion but that does not lend itself as evidenc of a living human Jesus less one accept resurrection.

[Robittybob1]

Rob, I think you aren't trying very hard. This is the first entry in my google search:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Council_for_Justice_and_Peace

The Pontification Council Roman Catholic Church were the terms I was looking for. "Pontifical council" would have helped.

OK so which "Pontifical Council" has declared that Jesus didn't exist?

What you quoted is the traditional Christian church view and not the critical view of scholars:

 

" Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view."

"The epistle of Philemon, almost universally accepted as an authentic letter of Paul, merely includes the name "Luke" among other "co-workers" of Paul who are sending greetings to the letter's recipients (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians 4:14, but Colossians is widely believed by New Testament scholars to be not an authentic writing of Paul, but "pseudonymous", i.e., written under a false name.[14] 2 Timothy 4:11 also mentions a "Luke" and refers to him being "with me" but most modern scholars do not accept 2 Timothy as an authentic letter of Paul either.[15]"

 

Authorship of Luke is not clear. Paul's letters are the earliest works scholar agree are authentic and Paul was not contemporary to a living Jesus. There are not any known authentic eye witness sources for Jesus. Paul does claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus post crucifixion but that does not lend itself as evidence of a living human Jesus less one accept resurrection.

Traditional view is just as powerful in my opinion. An aspect like "known" is easily missed in history. How many of the people you know will be able to be proven they knew you in 100 years time let alone 2000 years later.

[Ten oz]

Traditional view is just as powerful in my opinion. An aspect like "known" is easily missed in history. How many of the people you know will be able to be proven they knew you in 100 years time let alone 2000 years later.

For starters it is Paul who is claimed to have identified Luke, the gospels (Luke/Acts) were not signed. Luke is said to have interviewed eye witness to Jesus. Again, Paul wasn't contemporary to Jesus and never knew Jesus as a man. Luke's account was put into writing something like 80-100yrs after the time Jesus is said to have lived. So at best if we accept the traditional view Luke is a third hand account. This is the trouble I have with using the New Testament to prove history. Luke is suppose to have known eye witness and that fact is somehow proved by Paul who himself wasn't an eye witness? Its circular logic.

 

I have seen the arguement made a numbers times that 2,000yrs on it would be hard to prove someone existed. I think it is a rather weak argument that persists only because so many use it. For example we can prove Julius Caesar existed. Plenty was written about him during his life (not a hundred years after), he wrote things down himself, art contemporary to him, and etc. The rebuttal to that generally claims that Jesus was not as significant during his life as someone like Caesar so the comparison doesn't work. However Jesus was important enough to have disciples, Apostles carry of his story, an entire religion sprang forth from his tradition within something like a hundred years. Jesus was significant enough to have had someone contemporary to him write something, anything, down about him? If Luke was real, interviewed people who knew Jesus, and wrote Luke and Acts himself why did it take a hundred years after the crucifixion for them to be written?

 

It is also worth noting that not only isn't there solid prove Jesus was real but there is solid prove any of his relatives were real. What Happen to his Mother, Stepfather, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, and etc. in the years of when the church was born and Jesus became its God where were those relatives? James was said to be an early leader of the church and was killed other than that rumor and myth surround the other immediate family members. With in a generation any stories of the family are gone. As Jesus grew in importance surely a grandchild or great grandchild of Mary would have come forward? Some attempt to keep a family tree made by the early church?

[Robittybob1]

For starters it is Paul who is claimed to have identified Luke, the gospels (Luke/Acts) were not signed. Luke is said to have interviewed eye witness to Jesus. Again, Paul wasn't contemporary to Jesus and never knew Jesus as a man. Luke's account was put into writing something like 80-100yrs after the time Jesus is said to have lived. So at best if we accept the traditional view Luke is a third hand account. This is the trouble I have with using the New Testament to prove history. Luke is suppose to have known eye witness and that fact is somehow proved by Paul who himself wasn't an eye witness? Its circular logic.

 

I have seen the arguement made a numbers times that 2,000yrs on it would be hard to prove someone existed. I think it is a rather weak argument that persists only because so many use it. For example we can prove Julius Caesar existed. Plenty was written about him during his life (not a hundred years after), he wrote things down himself, art contemporary to him, and etc. The rebuttal to that generally claims that Jesus was not as significant during his life as someone like Caesar so the comparison doesn't work. However Jesus was important enough to have disciples, Apostles carry of his story, an entire religion sprang forth from his tradition within something like a hundred years. Jesus was significant enough to have had someone contemporary to him write something, anything, down about him? If Luke was real, interviewed people who knew Jesus, and wrote Luke and Acts himself why did it take a hundred years after the crucifixion for them to be written?

 

It is also worth noting that not only isn't there solid prove Jesus was real but there is solid prove any of his relatives were real. What Happen to his Mother, Stepfather, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, and etc. in the years of when the church was born and Jesus became its God where were those relatives? James was said to be an early leader of the church and was killed other than that rumor and myth surround the other immediate family members. With in a generation any stories of the family are gone. As Jesus grew in importance surely a grandchild or great grandchild of Mary would have come forward? Some attempt to keep a family tree made by the early church?

It must be getting late where you are for there were a lot of mistakes in what you wrote.

Never mind I read it through and put the most negative spin on the corrections.

 

I am rather surprised about what you say about Luke .

"Luke's account was put into writing something like 80-100yrs after the time Jesus is said to have lived. So at best if we accept the traditional view Luke is a third hand account."

 

Being related to Jesus wasn't considered anything particularly important in those days.

There are writings where the relatives of Jesus are questioned by the Romans around 100 AD or thereabouts, but they prove they are just simple folk with no political aspirations.

[Ten oz]

It must be getting late where you are for there were a lot of mistakes in what you wrote.

Never mind I read it through and put the most negative spin on the corrections.

 

I am rather surprised about what you say about Luke .

When do you believe Luke and Acts to have been written?

 

"Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[20] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[5] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[6]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

 

 

Being related to Jesus wasn't considered anything particularly important in those days.

There are writings where the relatives of Jesus are questioned by the Romans around 100 AD or thereabouts, but they prove they are just simple folk with no political aspirations.

What writings? I would be interested in reading. Do you have link?

 

 

If by errors you are referencing grammar I admittedly can be sloppy. I apologize if it is distracting.

[Skeptic134]

Traditional view is just as powerful in my opinion. An aspect like "known" is easily missed in history. How many of the people you know will be able to be proven they knew you in 100 years time let alone 2000 years later.

 

The traditional view, based upon faith, of religious followers is just as powerful as the view of historical scholars?

 

Saying "that's what I've always been told" by people that have an obvious vested interest in you believing their story is just as convincing as historical evidence?