The Historical Jesus.

[arnisador]

Originally posted by heretic888
whom, like Jesus, I doubt ever existed in the historical sense

Not to start a tangent, but I don't think any serious historian doubts that there was a Jesus of Nazareth in the early first century who started a religious/philosophical movement usually termed "The Jesus Movement/Way" or something similar. There's independent confimation of this (e.g., in the works of Josephus).

I too wonder how Mr. Bussey came about his terrorism/security training.

 

[Karasu Tengu]

It is MHO that Christianity in its current form is designed to keep the ignorant, ignorant. It is fear based. Take a look at their programing on Sunday Morning television. (Especially the "healings" ) Why else would they refer to themselves as sheep and flock. Sheep are some of the dumbest creatures on the planet with the exception of those who believe in fraudulant martial arts teachers. They wander around with their noses up each others asses and need a "shepard" to straighten them out and "guide" them. If one were to walk over a cliff the others would blindly follow. At least Buddhism allows the masses to think for themselves as they struggle for enlightenment.

One man's devine gifts are another mans Santanic manifistations.

I seem to recal a passage in the Bible about not seeking out mediums and psychics in order to gain knowledge of things to come. But nothing pertaining to meditation and developing one's "awareness".

However I do know some Christians (of faith as opposed to those of religion) who have no problem with meditation, mikkyo, kuji-in etc. They understand the reasons why it was/is practiced.

Josephus (Joseph of Aramathia?) Didn't he live quite some time "after" the time of Jesus. Actually there are accounts in Roman history as to his existance. The History Channel did a very good (neutral) special as to his life (well that last part of it at least).

 

[heretic888]

Not to start a tangent, but I don't think any serious historian doubts that there was a Jesus of Nazareth in the early first century who started a religious/philosophical movement usually termed "The Jesus Movement/Way" or something similar.

Actually, there are, but they don't usually receive media acknowledgement for the obvious reasons.

And, also, even among those that do swear there was a historical 'Jesus' (even that name in its original form, Iesous, gives little credence to this claim) have absolutely no historical documentation or proof to back this up. They basically are just running on a pet hypothesis of theirs (not a theory, which requires proof of some kind to back it up).

On the other hand, there are many many reasons to believe there was no historical Jesus, including the multitude of parallels between the Jesus story and various 'Pagan' myths, but let's not get into that now...

There's independent confimation of this (e.g., in the works of Josephus).

The 'Jesus references' among Josephus's works are largely discredited as forgeries of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. And, even if we do assume Josephus wrote them (an unlikely probability), he was not even born until a decade after Jesus supposedly died and cites no historical facts or resources to give reason Jesus ever lived. It is also curious that Church fathers that would have benefitted in citing Josephus as a historical source to "prove" Jesus actually existed, such as Ireneaus living in the early 2nd century and was in constant debate with Pagan critics such as Celsus as to whether Christianity was derived from Paganism or not, completely fail to do so.

Outside of Josephus' flimsy references, there is no mention made of either Jesus or the Christian movement(s) until around 115 CE.

Actually there are accounts in Roman history as to his existance.

Actually, no, there aren't. At least not until over 110 years after he was supposed to have lived. No historian living during "Jesus"'s own time ever mentions him, including Jewish contemporary Philo.

The History Channel did a very good (neutral) special as to his life (well that last part of it at least).

Heh. I wouldn't take anything on a popular 'educational' tv channel as being a good source. After all, they are still passing that "the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls were Essenes" bit around (it is generally agreed upon in contemporary scholarship the Essenes were not the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.. but Shh! don't tell the media that!).

Laterz.

 

[Jay Bell]

As much as people have the opportunity to get upset about this....heretic is right. There are no historical non-Christian documentation of Jesus ever existing. No court (Roman/Hebrew) or death records.

As far as Orthodox Judaism, he never existed. Most Christian based references will lead you to believe that they thought him to exist, but that they just did not believe he was the Messiah. This is not true. No where in Hebrew or Roman texts (both of which are meticulous) is he ever mentioned.

Though I have a lot of respect for the History Channel (and the like), many of their programs are created by third parties and simply aired on the History Channel (Top 10 Martial Arts anyone?). Recently they aired a program where genetics is proving that all humans traced back to one woman. Of course, the Xtians grabbed that as being Eve and flew with it as some sort of proof to back the tellings of the bible.

Disclaimer: I don't enjoy religious debates. There is no end. It's taking what people believe with their hearts against written, historical documentation. Christianity is so intertwined into our basic society that it's near impossible to find credible resources of history of that age without having things lean towards Jesus or Christianity of some breed.

 

[arnisador]

Thread split from this thread.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[arnisador]

I did mean Flavius Josephus, who was born shortly after Jesus is presumed to have died. I am aware that there are no other contemporary references and that Josephus was writing decades after the events in question. But it's unusual to question the reference to Jesus in the trial of his brother James. The other reference is known to have been redacted by the pious (though there is a version that came through the Arabs).

What is an approachable and reputable reference for the case that there was no historical Jesus? Certainly one can easily draw parallels between the Bible and earlier mythologies, and between the New Testament's teachings and earlier philosophies, but I am not familiar with the theory that Christianity doesn't trace to a single Jewish individual who lived in the early part of the first century who founded a charismatic movement centered around himself.

 

[don bohrer]

Guys,
I would like you to read a relitively short book by Lee Strobel, called "The Case For Christ".


don

 

[Jay Bell]

Thanks for the info, Don. It looks quite interesting. I looked it up on Amazon and it looks like Lee Strobel has written two books:

"The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus"

and

"The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity"

I might just have to order me some readin

 

[MA-Caver]

Like wise when you get reading those books suggested (above) then try out Og Mandino's Christ Commission.

For the record... I'll stand behind and (yes) die for my belief in the Living Jesus Christ.

 

[Mon Mon]

I agree man thats awesome

 

[Cruentus]

To say that there aren’t historical references to Jesus is false. Here are some to add to your collection:

First, we have statements from non-Christian sources. These sources were from “Pagan” sources, and not the happy neo-pagan kind that exists today. Many of them just didn’t understand the Hebrew religion because it contrasted there poly-theistic beliefs, so they met “Christians” with distrust. So these non-Christian sources might not be very “Christian friendly,” yet they do unwittingly point to the existence of “Christ.”
Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) states: the Founder of the Christian religion, a deadly superstition in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickness and shamelessness; furthermore, that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy.
Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv). Despite all of this, it is estimated that he lived around this time period to give an account that “Christians” and “Christ” did indeed exist.
Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church.
Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere).
The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon ( Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion.
Next….let’s go to some of the Jewish sources:

Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, iv) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends.

The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disappoves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ. Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation:
About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.
A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each.
Those who regard the passage as spurious
First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:
· Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;
· the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;
· its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.
But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings.
Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions
A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two:
· Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated.
· Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47).
Whatever force these two arguments have is lost by the fact that Josephus did not write for the Jews but for the Romans; consequently, when he says, "This was the Christ", he does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the Christ considered by the Romans as the founder of the Christian religion.
Those who consider it to be completely genuine
The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following:
· First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way.
· Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition.
· Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., I, i), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.
· Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity.
All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of posssible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity.

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century.
The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.
Among the Christian sources of the life of Jesus we need hardly mention the so called Agrapha and Apocrypha. For whether the Agrapha contain Logia of Jesus, or refer to incidents in His life, they are either highly uncertain or present only variations of the Gospel story. The chief value of the Apocrypha consists in their showing the infinite superiority of the Inspired Writings by contrasting the coarse and erroneous productions of the human mind with the simple and sublime truths written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Among the Sacred Books of the New Testament, it is especially the four Gospels and the four great Epistles of St. Paul that are of the highest importance for the construction of the life of Jesus.
The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthinas) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ's life; they have at times been called the "fifth gospel"; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; their testimony is also earlier than that of the Gospels, at least most of the Gospels; it is the more valuable because it is incidental and undesigned; it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates. At the same time, these four great Epistles bear witness to all the most important facts in the life of Christ: His Davidic dscent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, His repeated appearances (Romans 1:3-4; 5:11; 8:2-3; 8:32; 9:5; 15:8; Galatians 2:17; 3:13; 4:4; 5:21; First Corinthians 6:9; 13:4; etc.). However important the four great Epistles may be, the gospels are still more so. Not that any one of them offers a complete biography of Jesus, but they account for the origin of Christianity by the life of its Founder. Questions like the authenticity of the Gospels, the relation between the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth, the Synoptic problem, must be studied in the articles referring to these respective subjects.
Hmmm….No writings to support the existence of Christ, eh? Next you’ll all try telling me that the Holocost never happened.

Conclusion:
I think a major problem is that Critics and Christians alike forget also that the Bible is not just one book. It is a compelation of writtings. Some of these are ment to be historical references, like the Gospels. Some are just letter to the different churches, like Paul’s letters. Some are legendary truths to be taken figuratively, with many different levels of meaning, like the creation story. Some are ment almost strictly for record keeping, like numbers. To require evidence outside “The Bible” (because you see the bible as only one book) is retarded. Count how many books you have in the new testement, and that’s how many “references” you have to “Christ” and “Christians”. Then start counting the references outside. You’ll find plenty.

Another thing that people forget is how Jesus and the Apostles lived their lives. They were wandering nomads, teaching their beliefs and living off the land. They didn’t carry a pen and notepad with them. They didn’t use a “Bible” like we do today. They wandered and taught concepts that were unheard of at the time. It wasn’t til much later when different followers saw the importance of writing some of these accounts down that the Gospels were created to be a historical account. Jesus didn’t have a Biographer because that was really not the way things were taught back then, by that group. Many Hebrews were still “tribal” in nature, and Oral tradition was of great importance, as well as the Torah, and other written laws. Plus, the Romans had such a vast kingdom that writings and records were not kept well in the outer lands of Rome, including Jerusulam. Anyways, I could go on and on with valid points here, but the fact is that asking for more written records is almost absurd given the circumstance. We have enough to at least point to the existence of a “Christ” around 2000 yrs ago, regardless of what your beliefs as to what this Christ was.

And for my final point; just because many of you may feel that writings are “scarce,” that doesn’t make the existence of Jesus, the acts of Jesus, or the Religion invalid. To think so is one of the biggest fallacies of them all. If you don’t want to be Christian, fine, but argue it in some other way rather then through illogical assumptions. There are many historical findings out there that people will believe and not question with very little “written” records at all. Go through all the major religions and even some of the minor ones, and you won’t find any better evidence supporting them. Where is Budda’s Autobiography? Oh…he didn’t have one so he must have never existed, right? Oh…Taoism only has 1 text written by one guy, so it must not be true either. Druids never existed either because there is very few written accounts of them. Native American Shamans and religions didn’t exist either because where are there written accounts? Even if there are some, I need to see more proof then just some, don’t I ????????????? Do you see where this get’s us? No where. Yet as stupid as these arguments are, people use them to attempt to invalidate Christianity all the time. Now, are there Historians who through an attempt to either make a name for themselves, or just to appease their need to feel superior then their collegues, who maintain that Christ never existed? Sure….but their “proofs” are extremely flawed, and these historians have yet to prove themselves to the academic community.

Bottom line: I am going to use Tom Browns Tracking school as a secular example to my final point. Tom Brown (a favorete of mine) is noted as the greatest Tracker and wilderness survivalist in North America, and possibly the world. What is his source; his serogot native American Grandfather who was supposedly taught the ways of an Apache scout and Shaman by his people. He passed these ways to Mr. Brown. So…where is our written record of this while he was alive? How do we know, other then Tom Browns word, that this isn’t all a bunch of Balognie? We have nothing, no written documents. So, we could say that it is all crap if we wanted to. But the fact is, Tom Brown and his students have proven time and time again their abilities to survive and track in the wilderness to Military, FBI, and through many other credible sources who have NEEDED their skills. So what is the point; we have no proof of the orgins of these techniques in writing, but the fact is…IT WORKS!! The methods and philosophy behind the methods work. Christianity can be argued by protagonists and antagonists all day long. But the fact is, if applied correctly, (and not used as a ruse for men in power to control, start wars, etc.) Christianity works! But…if you can’t make it work for you then it is your loss, in my opinion. However, don’t make ludicrous claims with no supporting evidence to try to drag down the rest of the world with you!

Thank you for putting up with me...

I go home now...


PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Jay Bell
Thanks for the info, Don. It looks quite interesting. I looked it up on Amazon and it looks like Lee Strobel has written two books:

"The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus"

and

"The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity"

I might just have to order me some readin

Me too...is it "Pro" or "con" on Christs existance. I'd read it either way, but I am just curious.

 

[arnisador]

Are any of those sources contemporaries of Jesus? I believe that every one of the sources that references Jesus himself directly is after the time at which he is assumed to have died (circa 30 CE).

I believe that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who founded, or about whom there was founded, a religion. But, I acknowledge the sources problem.

 

[r erman]

There is no doubt that Josephus wrote about Jesus. What is called into question are the later additions added to his antiquities when being "translated" by christian scribes.

Josephus' description was decidedly neutral overall, if not somewhat critical. Because of this the additions added to elevate Jesus are pretty obvious.

Anyone with an interest in the historical jesus from a scholarly point of view, ought to check in to any of John Dominic Crossan's numerous works.

It's very easy to visualize a jewish peasant wisdom teacher, influenced heavily by essenic spritual teachings by way of John the Baptist, and greek Cynicism(look it up ), teaching his kingdom movment of egalitarian healing and commensality--the myths, legends, and divine powers of Jesus were largely added in after the Council of Nicea decided exactly what Jesus Christ's role would be in their new and improved Roman religion. It had little to do with the judaic sect of the same name...

 

[rmcrobertson]

It seems pretty clear that this guy existed. Problem is, his historical and material existence settles nothing--the point, for Christians, is that this man was the Son of God, the Word Made Flesh.

And no amount of research is going to settle that one.

Nor does the Bible help, being a pretty shaky text itself...might look up the obvious reference, the so-called Jesus Project folks...

 

[don bohrer]

Paul,
Very well put. Your not a lawyer by chance?

As Jay Bell mentioned there are two books written by Lee Strobel. Both are pro Christ, and well done.

The Case for Christ is the one I would start first. I will let someone borrow my copy to read quickly and when finished pass it on to another interested person. Just email me your address. I will mail it during my lunch.

don

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by arnisador
Are any of those sources contemporaries of Jesus? I believe that every one of the sources that references Jesus himself directly is after the time at which he is assumed to have died (circa 30 CE).

I believe that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who founded, or about whom there was founded, a religion. But, I acknowledge the sources problem.

I achknowledge the problem with these sources as well. Basically we don't have a Biographer who followed around Jesus and wrote down these accounts while he was alive. This is unfortunate, but this is also the case with many accepted historical happenings that people are more ready to accept.

Now, A Christian would explain this as perhaps there wasn't any biographical writings by design. Now, people are required to have a much higher degree of faith to believe the Jesus story; as opposed to having it easily handed to them, they are now required to dig deep within themselves to decide if the religion is true for them or not.

However, from a historical perspective, there are logical reasons why most of Jesus' contemporaries didn't write things down.

- His followers were told to take up their Robe and walking stick to go out and spread the "word," and follow Jesus. They were not asked to take up a pen and scroll.
- It was more of a commonplace to teach by an Oral tradition rather then writting things down in those days and with that group.
- Christians were persecuted greatly in the beginning by both Jews, Pagans, and the Roman Government. So, desciples were on the run constantly, from town to town. Out of the original apostles, when they finally decided to "settle" for a time, they were killed. John escaped a grissly death, but yet still died in exile. My point is, under these circumstances it was very difficult to "publish" or write down anything.
-Another problem that occurs is, if they were to keep writtings while on the run, where would they put them? How would they stop these writings from being destroyed by their captors? So, given the circumstances, we can possibly theorize that Jesus contemporaries could have actually had more written records that could have been destroyed. I don't think that anyone will argue that the powers that be often try to "rewrite history," because this occurs today. So we can assume that because Christianity was the underdog of the time period, that it would have been difficult to have preserved any kind of written documentation.

I included in my post non-biblical sources because that was what was asked for, and under question. Even though the arguement "you won't find any historical references outside the bible" as a means to invalidate Christianity is flawed because "The Bible" isn't one text, the arguement is outright false anyways, because there are plenty of references to Jesus, Christianity, and Christians outside of the Biblical texts.

But if one recognizes that the Bible isn't just one text, then one will be able to find the very few writtings by contemporaries of Jesus. It's a short list, but they are there. The epistle of Peter are letters from Peter, contemporary and apostle of Jesus, written after Jesus' crusifixion, while Peter was trying to establish the Christian Religion in Rome. This could be considered a primary source. Outside of the fact that the author of the epistle addresses himself as the apostle Peter, Paul (who did not have the benefit of meeting Jesus while he was walking on earth) validates this "Peter" by referencing him in his letters. We also have the letters of James, Jude (although he wasn't "one of the 12", he references himself as "The brother of James" and is assumed historically to be a contemprary who would have actually witnessed Jesus), and John. These are 4 authors who we can attribute to being contempraries of Jesus, and their letters, along with Paul's, are the earliest writings we have. They Pre-date the Gospels and Acts.

So, I maintain that sources exist, and by comparison to many other occurances in history, these sources are plentiful enough. I also maintain, then, that we have to assume that "Someone" named Jesus claimed to be the messiah, which started Christianity. Whether you are Christian or not, it violates good sense to not at least acknowledge this much.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by don bohrer
Paul,
Very well put. Your not a lawyer by chance?

As Jay Bell mentioned there are two books written by Lee Strobel. Both are pro Christ, and well done.

The Case for Christ is the one I would start first. I will let someone borrow my copy to read quickly and when finished pass it on to another interested person. Just email me your address. I will mail it during my lunch.

don

No, but I am still thinking about becoming one! I Run a wealth management Group right now.

I'll P.M. you my address. I would be happy to read the book, and send it either back to you, or to another interested person. I'll P.M. you my address. I appreciate the offer.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by r erman
It's very easy to visualize a jewish peasant wisdom teacher, influenced heavily by essenic spritual teachings by way of John the Baptist, and greek Cynicism(look it up ), teaching his kingdom movment of egalitarian healing and commensality--the myths, legends, and divine powers of Jesus were largely added in after the Council of Nicea decided exactly what Jesus Christ's role would be in their new and improved Roman religion. It had little to do with the judaic sect of the same name...

I have to correct you here. The first council of Nicea was in 325. The Gospels and the Letters predate this council by a few hundred years. Yet, these texts speak of the "divine Powers" of Jesus, and of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God long before this council, to the tune of a few hundred years.

Although I will agree with you that the Roman Government used Christianity to their advantage (as we do today, and as many Governments in the past have done), I think that to say that Christ's divinity was fabricated 300 or so years later is false given the evidence. I am sure this theory is something you have read or heard somewhere, but the evidence just doesn't support it.

 

[arnisador]

From a literary point of view, one can go further--a good case can be made for seeing (near-)contemporary writings within the synoptic gospels, even though they were not written until around 70CE-110CE. I'm talking about the Q gospel. I liked this book on it:
The Lost Gospel : The Book of Q and Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack