Historical records of Jesus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are no true primary accounts of Jesus. For example, if I'm an eyewitness, I viewed a situation firsthand.

The bible is filled with stories that were written YEARS after his death. So while the bible may be a primary document reflecting the time period (novels, plays and other nonfiction texts are primary), the accounts are not defined as eyewitness accounts.

The people who wrote the gospels WERE eyewitnesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not Christian either, but I don't think there is a single piece of evidence that he ever even existed. The earliest mentions of Jesus are about 200 years after his alleged death.

Personally, I think he probably existed as a small cult leader. After his death, his legacy grew and eventually, the Roman empire adopted Christianity as a way of unifying the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Yeah, if you don't actually know something, you should not really respond. Because you are incorrect. There is a LOT of documented evidence of Jesus' existence, discussed at length in many, many, many books. Pretty much no one doubts his existence.

Please list the books. The Bible doesn't count as one of them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_1?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Cn%3A6343234011%2Ck%3Adid+jesus+exist&keywords=did+jesus+exist&ie=UTF8&qid=1450545488&rnid=1000

How many of those books were written in the first century, A.D.? It doesn't count if the authors didn't actually meet him. Even the earliest references of Jesus were long enough after his death that they certainly didn't know him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought there were roman records of his execution. Definitive records.

Then you thought wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not Christian either, but I don't think there is a single piece of evidence that he ever even existed. The earliest mentions of Jesus are about 200 years after his alleged death.

Personally, I think he probably existed as a small cult leader. After his death, his legacy grew and eventually, the Roman empire adopted Christianity as a way of unifying the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Yeah, if you don't actually know something, you should not really respond. Because you are incorrect. There is a LOT of documented evidence of Jesus' existence, discussed at length in many, many, many books. Pretty much no one doubts his existence.

Please list the books. The Bible doesn't count as one of them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_1?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Cn%3A6343234011%2Ck%3Adid+jesus+exist&keywords=did+jesus+exist&ie=UTF8&qid=1450545488&rnid=1000

How many of those books were written in the first century, A.D.? It doesn't count if the authors didn't actually meet him. Even the earliest references of Jesus were long enough after his death that they certainly didn't know him.

Have you actually read any books discussing the historical evidence of Jesus? Amazon is not going to sell first century books, I don't know why you think I would reference them...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought there were roman records of his execution. Definitive records.

No. There were no records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no true primary accounts of Jesus. For example, if I'm an eyewitness, I viewed a situation firsthand.

The bible is filled with stories that were written YEARS after his death. So while the bible may be a primary document reflecting the time period (novels, plays and other nonfiction texts are primary), the accounts are not defined as eyewitness accounts.

The people who wrote the gospels WERE eyewitnesses.

The gospels were written down long after the events they describe, and they were not written down by the apostles themselves, but were based on an oral tradition that may have originated from the apostles.

[Anonymous]

I found this online - like a PP said it was a few years after he died, like 60-ish later:

The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, writing in the 80s or early 90s C.E., indicated that both Jewish leaders and the Roman prefect played roles in the crucifixion of Jesus:

About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure. He attracted many Jews and many Greeks. He was called the Christ. Pilate sentenced him to die on the cross, having been urged to do so by the noblest of our citizens; but those who loved him at the first did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, who are named after him, have not disappeared to this day.

[Anonymous]

Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

[Anonymous]

correction -fiction and not nonfiction

Anonymous wrote:There are no true primary accounts of Jesus. For example, if I'm an eyewitness, I viewed a situation firsthand.

The bible is filled with stories that were written YEARS after his death. So while the bible may be a primary document reflecting the time period (novels, plays and other nonfiction texts are primary), the accounts are not defined as eyewitness accounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ancient historian here (though this was not my period). There is no reference to him during his lifetime. However, there are some references within a few decades of his death, such that most historians brlieve that there was a preacher of that name at that time. Beyond that, there is little than can be definitively stated about the historical figure.

Sure, but, isn't it safe to infer, not only for the admitedly scant records but mainly for the complete devotion of the people who actually knew him (or, if you will, claimed to have known him) -- and were willing to be cruficied, stoned to death, etc on his name --, that he existed?

"Hey guys, let's make up the existence of this guy. We'll be willing to suffer horrible torture and death on this fake guy's name."

Well, the vast majority of persecuted Christians never claimed to have met him - the persecution of Christiians didn't begin in earnest till some time after his death.

But the first martyrs did meet eyewitness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no true primary accounts of Jesus. For example, if I'm an eyewitness, I viewed a situation firsthand.

The bible is filled with stories that were written YEARS after his death. So while the bible may be a primary document reflecting the time period (novels, plays and other nonfiction texts are primary), the accounts are not defined as eyewitness accounts.

The people who wrote the gospels WERE eyewitnesses.

There is no evidence that the gospels even existed until 200 years after his death. You need to realize that the New Testament that you read today is very far removed from what was written 1800 years ago. What you read is a translation of a translation of a translation that has been heavily edited and altered by countless leaders. It's actually fascinating to read what was really written that long ago. Read up on the Codex Sinaiticus. It is one of the oldest known versions of the gospels and is over 1600 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no true primary accounts of Jesus. For example, if I'm an eyewitness, I viewed a situation firsthand.

The bible is filled with stories that were written YEARS after his death. So while the bible may be a primary document reflecting the time period (novels, plays and other nonfiction texts are primary), the accounts are not defined as eyewitness accounts.

The people who wrote the gospels WERE eyewitnesses.

There is no evidence that the gospels even existed until 200 years after his death. You need to realize that the New Testament that you read today is very far removed from what was written 1800 years ago. What you read is a translation of a translation of a translation that has been heavily edited and altered by countless leaders. It's actually fascinating to read what was really written that long ago. Read up on the Codex Sinaiticus. It is one of the oldest known versions of the gospels and is over 1600 years old.

Nothing in its full version existed until years after his death, but eyewitnesses were probably collecting and writing down what they observed far before then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ancient historian here (though this was not my period). There is no reference to him during his lifetime. However, there are some references within a few decades of his death, such that most historians believe that there was a preacher of that name at that time. Beyond that, there is little than can be definitively stated about the historical figure.

Thank you. This was helpful.

-OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no true primary accounts of Jesus. For example, if I'm an eyewitness, I viewed a situation firsthand.

The bible is filled with stories that were written YEARS after his death. So while the bible may be a primary document reflecting the time period (novels, plays and other nonfiction texts are primary), the accounts are not defined as eyewitness accounts.

The people who wrote the gospels WERE eyewitnesses.

There is no evidence that the gospels even existed until 200 years after his death. You need to realize that the New Testament that you read today is very far removed from what was written 1800 years ago. What you read is a translation of a translation of a translation that has been heavily edited and altered by countless leaders. It's actually fascinating to read what was really written that long ago. Read up on the Codex Sinaiticus. It is one of the oldest known versions of the gospels and is over 1600 years old.

Nothing in its full version existed until years after his death, but eyewitnesses were probably collecting and writing down what they observed far before then.

Most people were not literate back then, so don't count on it. There is no known existence of an eyewitness account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding and I am not religious, is he did actually exist. Now, the bigger question for me is did he really have these visions or did he have a mental illness?

Really? I would think that the biggest question would be "Did he rise from the dead?"