Jobs & Education0 min ago
Did Jesus Actually Exist?
74 Answers
I realise that the facts surrounding his birth and death are open to debate, however did he ever exist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pretty_snowdrop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
On balance only, although an atheist, I believe the answer is Yes he Did Exist in History at About the Time Claimed.
TOO MANY records (Tacitus, Pliny) and believe it or not from me of all people "The Bible(s)" produced by the Greeks about 300 A.D. point in that direction to argue against pure fiction.
However I believe he was just another anti-roman and anti-Old-Testament preacher thus opposing the Roman collaborators as well as the Romans- but fictionalised about his messages and raison d'etre by Paul of Tarsus.
What better way of rousing the crowds than to pretend to be fulfilling the prophets description of the arrival of the Messiah, donkey and all!
I cannot cite a specific cast-iron text - but who can regarding the true history of the Caesars, Plato, Aristotle etc.?
The word of mouth tales were probably more reliable then than they are now when they are termed "gossip".
SIQ.
TOO MANY records (Tacitus, Pliny) and believe it or not from me of all people "The Bible(s)" produced by the Greeks about 300 A.D. point in that direction to argue against pure fiction.
However I believe he was just another anti-roman and anti-Old-Testament preacher thus opposing the Roman collaborators as well as the Romans- but fictionalised about his messages and raison d'etre by Paul of Tarsus.
What better way of rousing the crowds than to pretend to be fulfilling the prophets description of the arrival of the Messiah, donkey and all!
I cannot cite a specific cast-iron text - but who can regarding the true history of the Caesars, Plato, Aristotle etc.?
The word of mouth tales were probably more reliable then than they are now when they are termed "gossip".
SIQ.
Modeller, //Only one author of the gospels Mark actually spoke to one of the disciples Peter, //
I find it very odd that you appear to think the New Testament is an accurate source of information. It isn't. No one knows who wrote the Gospels, and although I personally think the man Jesus did exist, we have no firm evidence to substantiate that. If such evidence existed, we would know the answer and hence, the question wouldn't have been asked.
I find it very odd that you appear to think the New Testament is an accurate source of information. It isn't. No one knows who wrote the Gospels, and although I personally think the man Jesus did exist, we have no firm evidence to substantiate that. If such evidence existed, we would know the answer and hence, the question wouldn't have been asked.
The incredible abilities that are claimed for Jesus are clearly fiction. Hence it is extremely likely that his very existence was fiction too.
References to Jesus by scholars far after the time when was supposed to exist count for nothing. They are not independent sources but simply repetition of the same oral sources.
References to Jesus by scholars far after the time when was supposed to exist count for nothing. They are not independent sources but simply repetition of the same oral sources.
Naomi// I find it very odd that you appear to think the New Testament is an accurate source of information//
It seems equally odd to me that you make that assumption !
The authorship of the Gospels is 'unknown' but Mark is 'Believed' by some scholars to have spoken with Peter , which accounts for the the more down to earth language which is used, as compared with the more elegant Greek used in the other Gospels.
Another point about Mark, it is short and he never mentions anything about the nonsense of the Nativity or the Resurrection, which by its omission adds something to its possible validity.
It seems equally odd to me that you make that assumption !
The authorship of the Gospels is 'unknown' but Mark is 'Believed' by some scholars to have spoken with Peter , which accounts for the the more down to earth language which is used, as compared with the more elegant Greek used in the other Gospels.
Another point about Mark, it is short and he never mentions anything about the nonsense of the Nativity or the Resurrection, which by its omission adds something to its possible validity.
Never saw the point of the Resurrection. Jesus taught that those who followed him would achieve eternal life after death. He did not teach that we'd come back for a bit and then disappear into Heaven. There is no disputing that he did die on, or consequent upon, his being crucified. So what is the point of his reappearing in what would have been a miracle applying only to him? To say "Oh, I forgot to say..." ?
Modeller, //It seems equally odd to me that you make that assumption !//
I don’t understand that. As far as I can see I haven’t made an assumption. You’ve stated that ‘he was only known for about 2 years’ - (it’s generally estimated to be 3) - when actually it’s not known whether he existed at all, and you said that only “one author of the gospels Mark actually spoke to one of the disciples Peter”, implying that too to be fact. If not the New Testament, what is the source of your information?
I don’t understand that. As far as I can see I haven’t made an assumption. You’ve stated that ‘he was only known for about 2 years’ - (it’s generally estimated to be 3) - when actually it’s not known whether he existed at all, and you said that only “one author of the gospels Mark actually spoke to one of the disciples Peter”, implying that too to be fact. If not the New Testament, what is the source of your information?
Naomi May I suggest you Google ' Who wrote Mark's Gospel ' ?
There are many sites connecting Mark and his companion Peter and the literal connection between Mark's Greek and the Aramaic undertones which would indicate the source was Aramaic. However here is a site which explains it quite well. http://
By the way the length of Jesus' ministry is estimated between 18 months and 3 years I chose the middle one of 2 years as a compromise. Hardly an issue when we don't know.
There are many sites connecting Mark and his companion Peter and the literal connection between Mark's Greek and the Aramaic undertones which would indicate the source was Aramaic. However here is a site which explains it quite well. http://
By the way the length of Jesus' ministry is estimated between 18 months and 3 years I chose the middle one of 2 years as a compromise. Hardly an issue when we don't know.
Modeller, you can find ‘evidence’ for whatever you like on the internet.
http://
Read about your blogger who’s gone from an Evangelical to Anglican to Catholic priest – and who is asking for donations.
http://
The only ‘issue’ I have is an objection to people posting unsubstantiated and misleading information as fact. We know the Gospels were written long after the event, their authors unknown, so to claim that Jesus was 'known' when we don't know that he existed at all, and that “Only one author of the gospels Mark actually spoke to one of the disciples” is grossly inaccurate.
An indication of the length of Jesus ministry comes from 'John' – if the author is to be believed - which mentions three separate Passovers – hence it is generally assumed that the ministry encompassed a period of around three years beginning before the first and ending on the third.
http://
Read about your blogger who’s gone from an Evangelical to Anglican to Catholic priest – and who is asking for donations.
http://
The only ‘issue’ I have is an objection to people posting unsubstantiated and misleading information as fact. We know the Gospels were written long after the event, their authors unknown, so to claim that Jesus was 'known' when we don't know that he existed at all, and that “Only one author of the gospels Mark actually spoke to one of the disciples” is grossly inaccurate.
An indication of the length of Jesus ministry comes from 'John' – if the author is to be believed - which mentions three separate Passovers – hence it is generally assumed that the ministry encompassed a period of around three years beginning before the first and ending on the third.
I was curious about whether the Romans would have gone to the bother of documenting the politically embarassing issue of possible uprising in Palestine and the successful execution of a putative leader.
However, that only served to remind me of the likely fate of historical records of the time...
.....(wiki extract).....
Although there is a mythology of the burning of the Library at Alexandria, the library may have suffered several fires or acts of destruction over many years. Possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria include a fire set by Julius Caesar in 48 BC, an attack by Aurelian in the 270s AD, the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391, and the Muslim conquest of Egypt in 642.
After the main library was fully destroyed, ancient scholars used a "daughter library" in a temple known as the Serapeum, located in another part of the city. According to Socrates of Constantinople, Coptic Pope Theophilus destroyed the Serapeum in 391 AD.
...............
By way of context, Emperor Constantine's adoption of the Chi-Rho (XP) symbol was in 312 AD so we can assume that the Empire had no sense of preciousness about written records pertaining to Jesus for all of the intervening years and who knows what got damaged in the 270 AD fire?
Even if Herod had sent some type of report (of the crucifixion) to Rome then I doubt if it would have been treated much differently from the kind of corporate records discussed in an unrelated thread, the other day: - kept for half a dozen years in case of comebacks and eventually binned.
However, that only served to remind me of the likely fate of historical records of the time...
.....(wiki extract).....
Although there is a mythology of the burning of the Library at Alexandria, the library may have suffered several fires or acts of destruction over many years. Possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria include a fire set by Julius Caesar in 48 BC, an attack by Aurelian in the 270s AD, the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391, and the Muslim conquest of Egypt in 642.
After the main library was fully destroyed, ancient scholars used a "daughter library" in a temple known as the Serapeum, located in another part of the city. According to Socrates of Constantinople, Coptic Pope Theophilus destroyed the Serapeum in 391 AD.
...............
By way of context, Emperor Constantine's adoption of the Chi-Rho (XP) symbol was in 312 AD so we can assume that the Empire had no sense of preciousness about written records pertaining to Jesus for all of the intervening years and who knows what got damaged in the 270 AD fire?
Even if Herod had sent some type of report (of the crucifixion) to Rome then I doubt if it would have been treated much differently from the kind of corporate records discussed in an unrelated thread, the other day: - kept for half a dozen years in case of comebacks and eventually binned.
-- answer removed --
The truth is boring:we have no reason to believe that Jesus existed because there is no historical evidence for his existence, just stories told by people who never knew him and who give us no eyewitness accounts that we can study.
By all means believe that he existed if you like, but it can never be more than mere belief.
By all means believe that he existed if you like, but it can never be more than mere belief.
Quite so, Chakka.
Put it this way: if a person is 'a believer' but somehow feels the need to set about --proving-- the existence of Bible characters then, to me, that indicates that their faith is weak.
If a person is a non-believer then they have a choice; they can set out to prove the existence of Bible characters and demonstrate to all and sundry just how difficult (and 'academic') this is, or they can take their big nose and poke it somewhere more useful, leaving religious types in peace.
(If only I could take my own advice. Ahem) ;-)
Put it this way: if a person is 'a believer' but somehow feels the need to set about --proving-- the existence of Bible characters then, to me, that indicates that their faith is weak.
If a person is a non-believer then they have a choice; they can set out to prove the existence of Bible characters and demonstrate to all and sundry just how difficult (and 'academic') this is, or they can take their big nose and poke it somewhere more useful, leaving religious types in peace.
(If only I could take my own advice. Ahem) ;-)
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.