This is a subject that has cropped up in a couple threads already so I figure why not give it it's own thread.
So the questions Was the Biblical Jesus a real person? If not was there at least a historical Jesus used as a basis for the stories? Could it have been a complete fabrication?
Please provide evidence for or against your argument. If you use the Bible provide external sources to also back up your claim.
other religions like Judaism acknowledge his existence. not as the son of god or a prophet but as a man (I asked my Jewish friends about it).Therefore there is some weight behind Jesus existing.
The thing is, saying Jesus wasn't real is like saying Buddha or Aristotle or Julius Caesar weren't real. There's not what you deem "significant" evidence for them either.
other religions like Judaism acknowledge his existence
No its not, Judaism IS christianity which IS Islam which IS the same god that jehovas and muslims and catholics and and and the list goes on... Its all the same religion when you get down to the nitty gritty. So no, this is not adding ANY weight to the story.
The thing is, saying Jesus wasn't real is like saying Buddha or Aristotle or Julius Caesar weren't real. There's not what you deem "significant" evidence for them either.
Simply NOT true. There are many historical AND even LANDMARKED accounts of people like Julius ceaser and Aristotal i.e. what they actually built or wrote, I dont know about buddha tho. Why did jesus not leave a trace on this earth exept in the eyes of those who want to believe he was real.
AM I can't get the cApS things right all the time so I'm just gonna call you AM if that's ok. Anyway, there's a lot of reasons, for Jesus not leaving a mark until a few years after he died.
1. Persecution and Wars. The Early Christians were hated by the Romans, and if they had any documents on Jesus in their huts when the guards raided them, then they'd have been burned with the bodies.
2. Oral tradition. The Ancient Jews passed things along by conversations. That's just how they did it. There was a atime whenever they started writing things down, and this is also about the time when Jesus documents appear.
3. There was a guy who tried to make Christianity a world relgion by collecting all the historical and religious documents on Jesus. His name was Constantine, and he ruled over all the mediteranean land so he went through and destroyed historical and relgious documents of Jesus if they didn't agree with him.
Here's an old drawing showing 'book burning' by Constantine.
Persecution and Wars. The Early Christians were hated by the Romans, and if they had any documents on Jesus in their huts when the guards raided them, then they'd have been burned with the bodies
This doesnt account for all the non religious historians that record things down regardless of how bias they are against the subject. There would be some record, even saying about him being a madman. I find it strange how the only records view him in a religious way from religious factions.
Oral tradition. The Ancient Jews passed things along by conversations. That's just how they did it. There was a atime whenever they started writing things down, and this is also about the time when Jesus documents appear.
This is this still by a religious faction, so doesnt really give weight to him actually existing.
There was a guy who tried to make Christianity a world relgion by collecting all the historical and religious documents on Jesus. His name was Constantine, and he ruled over all the mediteranean land so he went through and destroyed historical and relgious documents of Jesus if they didn't agree with him.
There would still be something, you cant destroy all negative record of such a world changing person.
AM So it looks like what your looking for is a document saying he existed at the time he was existing. This document would have to be written by a non-religious historian who was outside the Judaism, but could understand the Jewish Religious culture, AND HEBREW well enough to write about this Rabbi within a timeframe of about 30 years, starting from the years he was preaching as a rabbi to the time that the Gospels have been dated by Jewish historians about 30 years after his crucifixion. And you won't believe that he ever existed until this document is found.
Well, if they witnessed or knew someone who witnessed the acts of Christ, of course they'd be Christian.
I doubt it, I rekon most people that would have witnessed events by jesus wouldnt have been christian. Christianity was supposedly spreading due to his influence, so would not have been the dominant religion at the time.
AM, OK. I guess it's narrowed down some. Just tell me if any or all of these things is correct for what your looking for.
Your wanting:
1. A document written by someone who witnessed within the 3 years of preaching, some event held by Jesus, but they did not think he was important enough to follow, so they didn't become Christian.
2. The witness decides later on that Jesus was so important that they would write about him (if they were even literate), but they were still not become Christian.
3. This witness would have to be so important in the ancient world that there writings would have been cherished and saved until now.
i am partially agostic, but im thinking of creating a jesusian faith. where we don't respect jesus just because of his daddy, but instead respect HIS values, of compassion and kindness for all people, no exceptions. he is just jesus to me, not mr. Christ.
but im thinking of creating a jesusian faith. where we don't respect jesus just because of his daddy, but instead respect HIS values, of compassion and kindness for all people, no exceptions. he is just jesus to me, not mr. Christ.
Fail. There already are other religions that treat jesus as such. (Looks at a jewish person)
1. A document written by someone who witnessed within the 3 years of preaching, some event held by Jesus, but they did not think he was important enough to follow, so they didn't become Christian.
2. The witness decides later on that Jesus was so important that they would write about him (if they were even literate), but they were still not become Christian.
3. This witness would have to be so important in the ancient world that there writings would have been cherished and saved until now.
Quite frankly that's a silly set of arbitrary criteria. Scholars already have a series of points they use when considering the credibility of ancient manuscripts. How should the Bible be viewed any differently?