As there are no known documents about Jesus from his lifetime, nobody can state with 100% certainty that he was real. Well they shouldn't but you know faith.
History, and in particular ancient history, is not an exact science. But there is a pretty good consensus between historians that a Jesus did exist. It is more probable he existed than not, it is not a faith question.
100% certainty will not be possible, Jesus at the time he lived was simply not relevant in the big scheme of things,. The fact Christianity is what it is nowdays historically speaking is a fluke.
But note that even the one the supports it makes several references to historians who do not accept it - and even states their disappointment that this passage is not held as particularly important in historical circles.
Yes, that 'most historians' line has become propaganda, almost. As if to suggest people who aren't convinced are being irrational and silly.
History, and in particular ancient history, is not an exact science. But there is a pretty good consensus between historians that a Jesus did exist. It is more probable he existed than not, it is not a faith question.
100% certainty will not be possible, Jesus at the time he lived was simply not relevant in the big scheme of things,. The fact Christianity is what it is nowdays historically speaking is a fluke.
I'm not sure that "it's more probable than not" that he existed. It would depend on the intent of the writers behind the Bible, and whether they were using a real person as inspiration or not.
As for him being irrelevant during his "lifetime", when you can't tell the difference between that and him not existing, then I think it's a matter of preference which you choose. For me it sits better that he may have not existed as a person, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Yes, that 'most historians' line has become propaganda, almost. As if to suggest people who aren't convinced are being irrational and silly.
The one I remember from when I was young and just accepted as truth for so long, purely because so many different people said it was "there's more proof that Jesus actually existed than there is for Julius Caesar."
I was actually quite shocked to find out how laughably untrue that statement was. Its like the multitude of urban myths that people believe, just because they've heard them repeated so many times.
I'm not sure that "it's more probable than not" that he existed. It would depend on the intent of the writers behind the Bible, and whether they were using a real person as inspiration or not.
As for him being irrelevant during his "lifetime", when you can't tell the difference between that and him not existing, then I think it's a matter of preference which you choose. For me it sits better that he may have not existed as a person, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Believe it or not there is something of an agreement in terms of what is historically plausible or not,or can be taught as being a more correct version of events, this "official" history is based on all the evidence and hard work of thousands of historian that have been studying the subject for years. So unless you are an historian yourself and have a credible theory to offer, most people, me included, have to trust in the work done by others. And the consensus is with the evidence we have, we are not doing history a disservice if we consider Jesus an historical figure.
You have all the right to disagree and pick up a bunch of books by historians, some of them by respected historians that claim the contrary and take the opposite view, but still based on the information we have that's not the consensus.
Having studied History and Knowing how History is "made" because it is a creation at the end of the day, i have no reason to disbelief the specialists.
Even though i'm an atheist and the historical reality of Jesus means nothing to me.
The one I remember from when I was young and just accepted as truth for so long, purely because so many different people said it was "there's more proof that Jesus actually existed than there is for Julius Caesar."
I was actually quite shocked to find out how laughably untrue that statement was. Its like the multitude of urban myths that people believe, just because they've heard them repeated so many times.
Yes, the Julius Caesar one is trotted out all the time and is a bit irritating. It doesn't make Jesus more likely to have existed, whatever way you cut it.
Believe it or not there is something of an agreement in terms of what is historically plausible or not,or can be taught as being a more correct version of events, this "official" history is based on all the evidence and hard work of thousands of historian that have been studying the subject for years. So unless you are an historian yourself and have a credible theory to offer, most people, me included, have to trust in the work done by others. And the consensus is with the evidence we have, we are not doing history a disservice if we consider Jesus an historical figure.
You have all the right to disagree and pick up a bunch of books by historians, some of them by respected historians that claim the contrary and take the opposite view, but still based on the information we have that's not the consensus.
Having studied History and Knowing how History is "made" because it is a creation at the end of the day, i have no reason to disbelief the specialists.
Even though i'm an atheist and the historical reality of Jesus means nothing to me.
I'm not asking you to believe me though, I'm only stating where I stand on it.
For me it's easy to say there was an historical Jesus, but I am being dishonest with myself as there is no reason to accept that. Especially when it comes to other mythology. If additional information is found, then I'm willing to change my mind.
But note that even the one the supports it makes several references to historians who do not accept it - and even states their disappointment that this passage is not held as particularly important in historical circles.
One of my bugbears about this particular subject is that on one hand, you have people who claim it is generally accepted by most historians, but if you actually do any research on the subject, it seems that there is huge disagreements on it.
Not only are there disagreements, but there are disagreements within the disagreements about how the data is valid or invalid. It just goes to illustrate how far it is from having any level of consensus. Although one could claim that the accepted position of the church is a large consensus, considering its size. But I think we can all quickly find the flaw in making that claim as a valid historical consensus!
I'm not asking you to believe me though, I'm only stating where I stand on it.
For me it's easy to say there was an historical Jesus, but I am being dishonest with myself as there is no reason to accept that. Especially when it comes to other mythology. If additional information is found, then I'm willing to change my mind.
I just stated your position is against the consensus, since i'm not an historian myself, my view will always be based on studies by others. I do not choose to have this opinion, it is what it is. To disapprove their stand, i.e. the general consensus at universities, i would have to show enough credible studies of the contrary, something i do not have the expertise to do.
People biggest mistake is that they perceive Jesus for the modern point of view, for the symbol that he is now, instead of seeing him for what he probably was to the romans, some insignificant criminal Jew from one of the millions of sects that according to the romans infested Judea.
I do believe that he existed, I just don't buy into any of that BS that he turned water into wine or walked on water & I def don't believe that his mum was a virgin when she got up the duff.
Without doubt, He existed(and still lives). Accounts of His life were recorded not long after his crucifiction and many of his followers, including disciples, died terrible deaths in the firm belief that they would inherit eternal life as he had promised. And, of course, my Bible tells me he lived, died and rose again- so it must be true.
I just stated your position is against the consensus, since i'm not an historian myself, my view will always be based on studies by others. I do not choose to have this opinion, it is what it is. To disapprove their stand, i.e. the general consensus at universities, i would have to show enough credible studies of the contrary, something i do not have the expertise to do.
People biggest mistake is that they perceive Jesus for the modern point of view, for the symbol that he is now, instead of seeing him for what he probably was to the romans, some insignificant criminal Jew from one of the millions of sects that according to the romans infested Judea.
People aren't necessarily making a mistake because they don't share someone else's view.
Also, if he was that insignificant, nothing would be known of him at all, as there isn't say, of Jeremy the goat herder and part-time preacher, and, if he was significant, than more than the disputed evidence external to the Bible might, by some, be expected to exist. (Yes, I know lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack but that doesn't conjure him into existence, either).
The NT itself is, inter alia, theology, not narrative history and talks about the idea of a Christ figure, which is not proof of a literal existence, but proof of the idea of one. The fact that some of the facts in the NT don't add up (some cite the census, for instance) and the supernatural events told in it show that.
There's also what is meant by 'Jesus existing'. The Jesus of the gospels or the likelihood of there having been a preacher called Jesus.
Plus the historicity of Jesus comes with all sorts of cultural baggage and assumptions that you can't necessarily compare with other historical figures. Doubting his existence was pretty controversial and almost uncontemplatable/a taboo until fairly recent times (in the scheme of history).
Personally, I think there likely was a character or character called Jesus who stirred up some trouble and was executed but it's not the slam dunk that some would have people believe and his life would bear little resemblance to the gospel narratives.
One of my bugbears about this particular subject is that on one hand, you have people who claim it is generally accepted by most historians, but if you actually do any research on the subject, it seems that there is huge disagreements on it.
Not only are there disagreements, but there are disagreements within the disagreements about how the data is valid or invalid. It just goes to illustrate how far it is from having any level of consensus. Although one could claim that the accepted position of the church is a large consensus, considering its size. But I think we can all quickly find the flaw in making that claim as a valid historical consensus!
absolutely agree... but try telling that to the believers on the 'god' argument...
jesus himself could return and tell them its a big con, they wouldnt believe it, just like crop circle nutters didnt believe the guys who addmitted it was them, not aliens.
I just stated your position is against the consensus, since i'm not an historian myself, my view will always be based on studies by others. I do not choose to have this opinion, it is what it is. To disapprove their stand, i.e. the general consensus at universities, i would have to show enough credible studies of the contrary, something i do not have the expertise to do.
People biggest mistake is that they perceive Jesus for the modern point of view, for the symbol that he is now, instead of seeing him for what he probably was to the romans, some insignificant criminal Jew from one of the millions of sects that according to the romans infested Judea.
I'm not an historian either, I did study theology though. However history is a passion of mine, so I did a lot of leg work getting to where I am now. I know I go against the consensus, but it's what's right for me at this time. I tend to look at it more through the eyes of historical literature, and that's why I think Jesus may have been a personification rather than a real person.
I agree that some people look at it through modern POVs, but I also think there's a problem with the line of thought "no smoke without fire". For me that's the easy answer given the lack of evidence. To me it makes no sense to say "well obviously the Gospel writers lied about the miracles, and the divinity etc etc, but totally didn't make up the person". At that stage it has to be a possibility.
I'm not an historian either, I did study theology though. However history is a passion of mine, so I did a lot of leg work getting to where I am now. I know I go against the consensus, but it's what's right for me at this time. I tend to look at it more through the eyes of historical literature, and that's why I think Jesus may have been a personification rather than a real person.
I agree that some people look at it through modern POVs, but I also think there's a problem with the line of thought "no smoke without fire". For me that's the easy answer given the lack of evidence. To me it makes no sense to say "well obviously the Gospel writers lied about the miracles, and the divinity etc etc, but totally didn't make up the person". At that stage it has to be a possibility.
Comments
History, and in particular ancient history, is not an exact science. But there is a pretty good consensus between historians that a Jesus did exist. It is more probable he existed than not, it is not a faith question.
100% certainty will not be possible, Jesus at the time he lived was simply not relevant in the big scheme of things,. The fact Christianity is what it is nowdays historically speaking is a fluke.
I'm not sure that "it's more probable than not" that he existed. It would depend on the intent of the writers behind the Bible, and whether they were using a real person as inspiration or not.
As for him being irrelevant during his "lifetime", when you can't tell the difference between that and him not existing, then I think it's a matter of preference which you choose. For me it sits better that he may have not existed as a person, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
The one I remember from when I was young and just accepted as truth for so long, purely because so many different people said it was "there's more proof that Jesus actually existed than there is for Julius Caesar."
I was actually quite shocked to find out how laughably untrue that statement was. Its like the multitude of urban myths that people believe, just because they've heard them repeated so many times.
'Jesus invented the Big Society – I'm just continuing God's work'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-claims-jesus-invented-the-big-society--he-is-just-continuing-gods-work-9250449.html
Believe it or not there is something of an agreement in terms of what is historically plausible or not,or can be taught as being a more correct version of events, this "official" history is based on all the evidence and hard work of thousands of historian that have been studying the subject for years. So unless you are an historian yourself and have a credible theory to offer, most people, me included, have to trust in the work done by others. And the consensus is with the evidence we have, we are not doing history a disservice if we consider Jesus an historical figure.
You have all the right to disagree and pick up a bunch of books by historians, some of them by respected historians that claim the contrary and take the opposite view, but still based on the information we have that's not the consensus.
Having studied History and Knowing how History is "made" because it is a creation at the end of the day, i have no reason to disbelief the specialists.
Even though i'm an atheist and the historical reality of Jesus means nothing to me.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/A_Silence_That_Screams
I'm not asking you to believe me though, I'm only stating where I stand on it.
For me it's easy to say there was an historical Jesus, but I am being dishonest with myself as there is no reason to accept that. Especially when it comes to other mythology. If additional information is found, then I'm willing to change my mind.
there are NO contemporary accounts of jesus.
Where's Pontius Pilate when you need him ?
Visiting his fwiend Biggus?
thanks for posting that...
it would be if there was any actual evidence he existed.
there isnt.
No prob!
One of my bugbears about this particular subject is that on one hand, you have people who claim it is generally accepted by most historians, but if you actually do any research on the subject, it seems that there is huge disagreements on it.
Not only are there disagreements, but there are disagreements within the disagreements about how the data is valid or invalid. It just goes to illustrate how far it is from having any level of consensus. Although one could claim that the accepted position of the church is a large consensus, considering its size. But I think we can all quickly find the flaw in making that claim as a valid historical consensus!
I just stated your position is against the consensus, since i'm not an historian myself, my view will always be based on studies by others. I do not choose to have this opinion, it is what it is. To disapprove their stand, i.e. the general consensus at universities, i would have to show enough credible studies of the contrary, something i do not have the expertise to do.
People biggest mistake is that they perceive Jesus for the modern point of view, for the symbol that he is now, instead of seeing him for what he probably was to the romans, some insignificant criminal Jew from one of the millions of sects that according to the romans infested Judea.
Also, if he was that insignificant, nothing would be known of him at all, as there isn't say, of Jeremy the goat herder and part-time preacher, and, if he was significant, than more than the disputed evidence external to the Bible might, by some, be expected to exist. (Yes, I know lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack but that doesn't conjure him into existence, either).
The NT itself is, inter alia, theology, not narrative history and talks about the idea of a Christ figure, which is not proof of a literal existence, but proof of the idea of one. The fact that some of the facts in the NT don't add up (some cite the census, for instance) and the supernatural events told in it show that.
There's also what is meant by 'Jesus existing'. The Jesus of the gospels or the likelihood of there having been a preacher called Jesus.
Plus the historicity of Jesus comes with all sorts of cultural baggage and assumptions that you can't necessarily compare with other historical figures. Doubting his existence was pretty controversial and almost uncontemplatable/a taboo until fairly recent times (in the scheme of history).
Personally, I think there likely was a character or character called Jesus who stirred up some trouble and was executed but it's not the slam dunk that some would have people believe and his life would bear little resemblance to the gospel narratives.
absolutely agree... but try telling that to the believers on the 'god' argument...
jesus himself could return and tell them its a big con, they wouldnt believe it, just like crop circle nutters didnt believe the guys who addmitted it was them, not aliens.
I'm not an historian either, I did study theology though. However history is a passion of mine, so I did a lot of leg work getting to where I am now. I know I go against the consensus, but it's what's right for me at this time. I tend to look at it more through the eyes of historical literature, and that's why I think Jesus may have been a personification rather than a real person.
I agree that some people look at it through modern POVs, but I also think there's a problem with the line of thought "no smoke without fire". For me that's the easy answer given the lack of evidence. To me it makes no sense to say "well obviously the Gospel writers lied about the miracles, and the divinity etc etc, but totally didn't make up the person". At that stage it has to be a possibility.