I am sure there was at some point some guy named Jesus who was crucified (a lot of people back then were crucified) but the person mentioned in the Bible is there any proof that he actually did live at the same time the Bible claims he did? FYI: I am not asking if he actually rose from the dead and became 2nd in command of the universe, that is something I do not accept at this point.
shareThere is proof of a historical Jesus that was crucified. Although, some people will chime in and deny it even though the scholarly consensus says otherwise.
shareIs it evidence outside of the Bible, and was he crucified at exactly the same time the Bible claims he was?
shareThere is Roman evidence by a historian called Tacitus, of a man called Christus that founded the "Christian sect" who was executed by Pontius Pilate.
shareIs there evidence that it's the person the Bible refers to?
shareScholars are not in agreement about the reference in Tacitus to Jesus ( which was written in 116AD by the way ). Some think that it was a later addition to the original text, or in other words a forgery.
Yeah sounds about right.
shareScholars being in disagreement about the Tacitus reference is a fringe view since consensus is that it is authentic and has historical value. Scholars use a criterion called the criterion of embarrassment when they evaluate historical artifacts/documents. The Romans hated Christians and in the manuscript, the persecution of Christians by Nero was mentioned as well as being hated for "their abominations". It wouldn´t make sense for someone partial to Christianity to write such an unfavourable description of Christians if they wanted to "invent the existence of Christ".
shareScholars being in disagreement about the Tacitus reference is a fringe view since consensus is that it is authentic...
It's only a fringe view because most of the scholars in the field are Christians and therefore they are predisposed to believe it's genuine.
...and has historical value.
How can something written over 80 years after the event and based entirely on hearsay have any historical value ? And that is leaving out the forgery charge !
Scholars use a criterion called the criterion of embarrassment when they evaluate historical artifacts/documents. The Romans hated Christians and in the manuscript, the persecution of Christians by Nero was mentioned as well as being hated for "their abominations". It wouldn´t make sense for someone partial to Christianity to write such an unfavourable description of Christians if they wanted to "invent the existence of Christ".
The criterion of embarrassment ! Here you go dragging in something technical out of left field to bolster your claims. What has the criterion of embarrassment got to do with a line or two fraudulently added to Tacitus to "prove" the existence of Jesus ?
How is it "out of left field"? It is a legitimate criteria for how historical documents are verified. "The criterion of embarrassment is one point listed in the Criteria of Authenticity used by academics, the others being the criterion of dissimilarity, criterion of language and environment, criterion of coherence, and the criterion of multiple attestation.[2]"
How can something written over 80 years after the event and based entirely on hearsay have any historical value ? And that is leaving out the forgery charge !
It's out of left field because how can the criteria of embarrassment apply to a person who is clandestinely adding text to Tacitus ? The whole idea is that no-one knows it was them so how could they possibly be embarrassed ?
Or are you suggesting that after they had fraudulently added their piece they would then have gone and crossed out the passages that embarrassed them ? That might have given the game away don't you think ?
As for the Great Fire of Rome you have to be kidding. That is referenced by several independent sources as well as being supported by the archaeological evidence. With Jesus as I said there is nothing written about him at the time he was supposed to have lived and considering he was performing gob smacking miracles and " Everyone was amazed !" it is a most remarkable absence as far as historical records go.
So the reference to Christians being executed by Nero in Tacitus writings on the Great Fire of Rome was a forgery but the reference to the fire itself wasn´t. Gotcha. You are so desperate to deny the existence of Christ its borderline funny.
If you want to understand the Criterion of embarrassment at least google what it means.
So the snarky duplicitous BillySlater is back again ! Dodging the issues and deflecting. I nailed you down on your attempt to use the criteria of embarrassment to back up what you were saying when it had nothing to do with it.
So instead of admitting your error you try to deflect the argument by fraudulently misrepresenting the issue yet again with your childish and feeble retort.
This is why I think you are a troll because no-one who was a genuine Christian evangelist could be so childish, inept and idiotic.
There is no error. You clearly don´t know what it means or how it applies.
share"was his last name Christ"
LOL! Had to laugh at that, sorry. "Christ" is actually the title given to the Hebrew messiah. It derives from the Greek "Christos", a translation of the Hebrew "Mashiakh" meaning "anointed", or the "Messiah".
So, really he should be referred to as "Jesus the Christ", but common usage has evolved it to be just Jesus Christ, which is why some people think "Christ" is his last name.
The trouble is that there's no documenatry evidence of Jesus from the time that he was supposed to have lived. The earliest writings are Paul's epistles and the earliest of those was written some 20 years after the time Jesus was supposed to have been crucified. The first gospel ( Mark ) was written some 40 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified.
Most scholars agree there probably was a man called whatever the Jewish equivalent of Jesus was and he probably was crucified by the Romans. But any more than that is pure guess work.
There is a very good documentary on the subject here on Youtube though maybe not everyone can watch it for copyright reasons or whatever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UulusbcS8V0
"Most scholars agree there probably was a man called whatever the Jewish equivalent of Jesus was and he probably was crucified by the Romans."
That is all he is asking.
If you leave out the bit where he says " the person mentioned in the Bible ". Or in other words the Jesus of the Bible as opposed to the historical Jesus.
The person called Jesus in the Bible being crucified by Pontius Pilate as well but not being the "historical Jesus" would be a helluva coincidence.
shareWhy do you put the term "historical Jesus" in inverted commas like that ? Do you think it's a questionable term, that there was no such person as the historical Jesus ?
The idea of the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible being identical now that would be a hell of a coincidence.
I put the term in inverted commas because I am using the term from a neutral person´s point of view. Since I believe in more than the "Historical Jesus" that is agreed upon by scholars. I believe in the miracle performing Jesus of the Bible. The "Historical Jesus" doesn´t confirm his miracles.
shareBut Billy you are not a neutral person are you ?
Which is why I put the term in inverted commas, since the "Historical Jesus" is not my Jesus.
shareOh I see, you were using the term from a neutral person's point of view even though you aren't a neutral person, which doesn't make any sense. But then nothing about that sentence made any sense so I shouldn't be surprised.
There are people on this site that don´t even believe in the "Historical Jesus", the OP seems like one of them so putting it in inverted commas offers neutrality. I guess its too much to expect a genius like you to understand though.
shareHow can someone not believe in the historical Jesus you idiot !? And contrary to what you say the OP does sound like a person who believes in the historical Jesus. You routinely make the most ridiculous statements.
You claim the Tacitus reference is a forgery yet its one of the few non-Biblical sources of evidence that supports the existence of a "Historical Jesus". Also I specifically remember you linking me a YT link to Richard Carrier who is a proponent of the Christ Myth Theory. So I guess you think Richard Carrier is an idiot now? lol.
shareI don't know. But I am sure there was at some point some lady named Dany who was stabbed to death (a lot of people back then were stabbed to death) but the person mentioned in the GOT is there any proof that she actually did live at the same time the GOT claims she did? FYI: I am not asking if her lover/killer actually rose from the dead and became King in the North. that is something I do not care at this point.
shareThe answer is it doesn't matter. The story of Jesus is mythology. I believe it's good mythology if it's taken as what it is. The problem comes when people take it literally and twist it into their own biased and limited worldviews. I believe in the future man will become finally enlightened. Then they will think philosophically rather than dogmatically.
shareIf you are the author of the bible, what clue would you put in it to make sure even the foolish people on the earth will know that it is just mythology?
shareThe thing that tipped me off was the verse that goes:
"I would not eat them on a lake,
I would not eat them with a snake.
I won't eat apples without God's leave,
You shouldn't tempt me, Eve, I believe."
There is only fringe "research" that claims to verify the historical existence of Jesus. It's similar to UFO and Bigfoot science. No solid evidence has come from legitimate archaeology or history.
shareSweet Home Alabama
share