Jesus' Historicity
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1. Well written. There is zero surviving non-biblical contemporary evidence for a historical Jesus. |
Anonymous
| Say what you want, but does anyone really think that through centuries, billions of people have followed a total myth? |
Anonymous
Yes. Just last year, we had millions vote for a POS liar. People are stupid. |
Anonymous
Season is mostly about the Earth's tilt. |
Anonymous
I mean as far as gods go, Jesus is what, 3,000 years short of Shiva? So that argument isn't a winner. Jesus isn't close to the longest worshipped religious figure. |
Anonymous
+1 There are people today that even when presented with overwhelming evidence that something is not true, still believe in it. Witness flat-earthers. |
Anonymous
Add in the well known story about the fabled founder of Rome, Romulus (especially in a Roman controlled province). Both the narratives of Jesus and Romulus feature a hero of divine parentage (Mars/God the Father), whose infancy is imperiled by a jealous ruler (Amulius/Herod) but who is saved and raised in humble circumstances. Both feature tales of prophesied death as part of a divine plan, after death their bodies disappear, and they are then seen after death. They both ascend to heaven. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus[21] such as the letters of Paul (contemporary of Jesus who personally knew eyewitnesses since the mid 30s AD),[note 5][note 6][22] the gospels (as biographies on historical people similar Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates),[23] and non-Christian sources such as Josephus (Jewish historian and commander in Galilee)[24] and Tacitus (Roman historian and Senator).[25][26] Multiple independent sources affirm that Jesus actually had family.[22][27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus |
Anonymous
|
Across secular, Jewish, Christian, agnostic, and atheist historians, the consensus is extremely consistent:
Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person. This is held by: • Marcus Borg (agnostic) • Bart Ehrman (atheist/agnostic New Testament critic) • Maurice Casey (agnostic) • E.P. Sanders (agnostic) • Geza Vermes (Jewish scholar) • Paula Fredriksen (Jewish historian) • John P. Meier (Catholic historian) • Even Roman historians like Michael Grant, who had no religious investment Their reasoning is based on: • Multiple independent sources (Paul’s letters, Mark, Q-like early material) • Embarrassing details unlikely to be invented (e.g., Jesus being executed as a criminal) • External confirmation (Tacitus, Josephus with some interpolation debated, early rabbinic comments) • The rapid rise of a movement centered on a known individual These historians disagree wildly on miracles, theology, and the divinity of Jesus—but they agree he existed as a real figure. |
Anonymous
|
So who denies his existence?
This is called mythicism, and it is held by: • Richard Carrier (PhD, controversial figure, strongly criticized) • Robert Price (former Baptist minister, fringe scholar) • A few online writers with no academic credentials Even many atheist scholars strongly reject mythicism. Bart Ehrman famously said mythicists: “represent a small but vociferous group who are almost entirely untrained in historical method.” Mythicism is considered by mainstream academics to be similar to: • Shakespeare-wasn’t-real theories • Ancient aliens explanations • Flat-earth–type fringe arguments (not identical, but similar in methodology) Why do virtually no historians deny Jesus existed? Because from a purely historical standpoint: • Paul’s letters, written within ~20 years of Jesus’ death, reference meeting Jesus’s brother James. → This is extremely difficult to explain if Jesus didn’t exist. • Early Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources treat Jesus as a real executed man. • The movement behaves like one that began around a charismatic teacher, not a fictional literary creation. Historians will debate what Jesus said, who he claimed to be, and how stories about him developed—but not whether he lived. |
Anonymous
|
Paul is writing 20 years after Jesus’s death — extremely early by ancient-history standards.
Paul says explicitly that he: • Met James, the brother of the Lord • Met Peter • Joined the movement that already existed shortly after the crucifixion Historians ask: How is there a movement centered around a non-existent person within a single generation, led by his “brother”? Mythicists try to argue that “brother” meant “spiritual brother,” but this collapses because: • Paul uses the term differently elsewhere • It appears specifically in a context of identifying a biological family connection This alone is one of mythicism’s biggest fatal blows. Historians look for multiple independent attestations — stories that come from different lines of tradition. For Jesus we have: • Paul (independent of the Gospels) • Mark (earliest Gospel) • Q-like material (sayings source used by Matthew/Luke) • M material and L material (unique to Matthew and Luke) • Josephus • Tacitus • Early rabbinic traditions These sources disagree on plenty — which proves they didn’t all copy each other. But they agree that: • Jesus was a real Jewish preacher • He had followers • He was executed by Roman authority When multiple hostile or indifferent sources confirm a person existed, historians treat it as strong evidence. Ancient writers rarely invent things that weaken their own case. For Jesus: • Being executed as a criminal is not something early Christians would invent. • His family not fully believing in him early on. • His baptism by John (implies inferiority). These are embarrassing, meaning historically likely. A mythic figure normally has: • Glorious birth narrative • Death in battle • Triumph Jesus has: • Obscure origins • A humiliating execution That’s the opposite of typical myth creation. If Jesus never existed, why did a Jewish sect form instantly around the belief that he was the Messiah? Mythic heroes usually develop over centuries (e.g., Hercules, Romulus). But Jesus’s movement exploded: • In Jerusalem, where he supposedly lived • Within a few years of his death Movements based on nonexistent people don’t spring up immediately among people who supposedly knew them. Here’s the harsh academic truth: Mythicism fails the basic rules of ancient historical method. Historians ask: • What is the simplest explanation that fits the evidence? • Does this explanation require extra assumptions? Mythicism requires: • Reinterpreting Paul unusually • Dismissing all embarrassing material • Suggesting coordinated literary invention without motive • Ignoring how Jewish messianic movements actually worked It becomes more complicated than simply accepting that a preacher lived and was executed. When Carrier and Price present mythicist arguments, historians from: • Princeton • Yale • Harvard • Brown • Cambridge • Oxford …all say the same thing: “This isn’t how ancient history works.” Mythicism relies on special pleading, hyper-skepticism, and reading texts against normal linguistic/historical usage. That’s why scholars in the field consider it fringe. Tacitus (Roman historian) writes about: • “Christus” who was “executed under Pontius Pilate” • The origin of the movement in Judea Tacitus hated Christians. He had no reason to repeat Christian myths — he got his information from Roman archives or non-Christian sources. Josephus (Jewish historian) also mentions Jesus twice. Even removing Christian edits, the core reference remains widely accepted. Hostile witnesses rarely treat fictional characters as real recent people. Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist): “There is no serious historian who doubts Jesus existed.” Paula Fredriksen (Jewish, non-Christian): “I don’t know any full professor of ancient history who doubts his existence.” Maurice Casey (agnostic): “Mythicism is an embarrassment to real scholarship.” Michael Grant (secular classical historian): “The denial of Jesus’s existence is not tenable.” When even scholars opposed to Christian theology uphold his existence, that’s telling. Modern mythicism arose from: • 19th-century anti-Christian activism • Non-scholarly writers • People pushing sociopolitical agendas It didn’t come out of universities or trained historians. That origin matters. Why Scholars Reject Mythicism Because it requires ignoring: • Early eyewitness-proximate sources • Embarrassing historical details • Hostile sources referencing Jesus • Historical method • How ancient movements form …and instead replacing them with a complex conspiracy-like theory without evidence. The simplest, strongest-supported conclusion is: A Jewish preacher named Jesus lived and was executed. Everything else Christians claim is a separate debate — miracles, theology, divinity — but the man himself? For historians, that part is not controversial. |
Anonymous
Yes it is called indoctrination. Look at the US Piggy is unfit and a criminal yet one third of the population thinks he's god. the Bible and jesus are made up stories for god's sake the bible was rewritten in what 1947.....and in ..... and in .... |
Anonymous
Across secular, Jewish, Christian, agnostic, and atheist historians, the consensus is extremely consistent: Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person. |
Anonymous
Passover starts the evening of the first full moon after the spring EQUINOX. . The Last Supper was a Passover meal. Solstices are in summer and winter you knew that in 7th grade but forgot. |