Jesus in history

[David19]

This is something I'd like to get your opinions on, as I'm quite interested in it, but, do you think there is good evidence that Jesus existed?, some people say, there's not, as the only thing that exists about him are the Gospels and they're "not reliable", but, others think differently.

It seems that quite a lot of serious historians accept he existed. Like an Atheist historian, called Michael Grant is quoted as saying:


This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

BTW, Michael Grant wrote 'Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels' (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Historians-Gospels-Michael-Grant/dp/0684818671), which is a book I want to get one day.

You can read more quotes on historians and Jesus here (http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm), the latter article is by an Apologetic, his home page is here (http://www.bede.org.uk/), but, IMO, he does have some interesting articles, and you shouldn't automatically distrust, or ignore, anything he says (also, he doesn't seem to be fundamentalist, I don't agree with everything he says, but, he's got some good articles, IMO).

On the former article I linked too, there's more quotes form historians, including Humanists, Atheists, and just normal academic historians (in other words, the ones that don't have an agenda), etc.

Personally, I don't think we should automatically say someone didn't exist, just 'cause, there's not huge amounts of evidence, with the person signing something, saying something like, "I woz here 2000 BC!".

Anyway, I'd really like to get your thoughts on this, whether you believe he did exist, or he didn't (and, if you have any good links, or books, for either cause, could you link them please?).

Thanks :).

[Anteros]

No, to my knowledge there is no reliable evidence on the actual existence of Jesus. All of his acts are just recycled Hebrew myths, or come from Greek mystery cults (or Egyptian mystery cults in Greece and Rome, like the cult of Isis). The only actual mention of him by any contemporary historian anywhere near Jesus' own alleged life was by Josephus, but that has since been proven as a forgery, probably written on Roman Emperor Constantine's orders. You'd think, being the divine messiah and all, that someone somewhere would have kept some kind of record of him during his actual life instead of recording his life in contradicting gospels written decades after his alleged death.

[Rudas Starblaze]

my thoughts:

as you mentioned, David, the gospels seem to be the only written "proof" of Jesus. but in the NT, there are only 4 gospels. as it has been proven, there are literally over 35 gospels about Jesus, his life, his mission/preachings, and his death. ironically, only 4 of those gospels made it into the final cut of what is now known as the "holy bible" which was put together by mainly one bishop (Ianius - i know thats not spelled right btw but its something like that).

anyway, he went all out of his way to keep anything but matthew, mark, luke, and john (which the book of mark is the oldest of the 4 texts) from being added to the HB. why, if he didnt exist, would he make such efforts in disregarding the other gospels that had a slightly different view of Jesus? in fact, he went even farther out of his way to dispose of several of the gospels, namely, The Gospel Of Judas (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/). which i do own the book itself, the book about it, and the DVD about it. it is very intersting read/watch and i do recommend it to everyone.

as for my thoughts on "did Jesus exist"....

if he didnt, then neither did any other historical/religious figure.

[Cloaked Raven]

Back when the bible times took place, the records were not as well kept as they are today. Things were lost over the millenniums and it's quite possible any records about him were destroyed over time... By anyone who didn't want the records to be kept... It could have went like how some of the Pharaohs tried to erase the existence of some of the other ones in their line, they didn't want future generations to know about them and hence destroyed any records they could find of them.

So it is possible that Jesus existed. There just may not be as much recorded about him that's left, that's all.

[MetropolisGott]

Does it matter if he existed or not? Pagan or Christian, Heathen or Athiest, does it really effect any of us if he is a historical figure or just an...example? Lao Tzu has been questioned as to whether he actually existed or not, but in the end, it doesn't make a difference. We have these teachings from him, or inspired by the idea of him, which are (in my opinion) very powerful and teach us to treat our fellow man with respect.

[Anteros]

Agreed, MetropolisGott :)

[Darth Brooks]

I think that Jesus the man really existed, and I think that Jesus the god-man is a Hebrew/Greek remanifestation of Osiris. Therefore my tradition posits that I am to respect Christ because he is a manifestation of Set's brother in another culture. Personally, I find both the biblical and non-canonical gospels to be very interesting, but even if we restrict the subject to those found in the New Testament, I think the story of Jesus is a good story for just about anyone, not just Christians.

[Lahmi]

That's an interesting analogy, Cloaky. :)

I have to admit that I was ignorant of this aspect of Egyptian history until
very recently, and found it to be fascinating.


Darth Brooks, I agree with you that the story of Jesus is a good one for all. :)

[Cloaked Raven]

That's an interesting analogy, Cloaky. :)

I have to admit that I was ignorant of this aspect of Egyptian history until
very recently, and found it to be fascinating.


Darth Brooks, I agree with you that the story of Jesus is a good one for all. :)
Well, my husband and I recently watched a program on Discovery that showed how one Pharaoh tried to erase another from history and almost succeeded.

It could be what happened to a lot of the records on Christ. Just a theory of course. ;)

[David19]

Back when the bible times took place, the records were not as well kept as they are today. Things were lost over the millenniums and it's quite possible any records about him were destroyed over time... By anyone who didn't want the records to be kept... It could have went like how some of the Pharaohs tried to erase the existence of some of the other ones in their line, they didn't want future generations to know about them and hence destroyed any records they could find of them.

So it is possible that Jesus existed. There just may not be as much recorded about him that's left, that's all.

That's quite an interesting idea, Cloaked Raven :) :thumbsup:.