It's weird how many people in this thread are vaguely debating the validity of the historical research into this question when one person has posted a link to a well cited article on this very very heavily studied subject.
I don't feel compelled to argue an interpretation. The facts are well documented and their interpretations by experts available. What anyone chooses to do with these are of no real concern to me.
Yeah there are plenty of historians who have done good work studying this and the academia is mostly settled. Not to say there's no controversy, but there's definitely an orthodox opinion.
In my experience, when it comes to debating the validity of religion, people tend to get far more emotional than other topics. People who are normally level-headed and quite logical tend to completely lose their ability to think rationally. And I mean both the people who argue for religion and against it.
Pretty clear that's the case here in the comments on this post.
Yep. This is one of those posts that should have just been a web search instead.
A literature search. The web is full of rubbish.
It’s almost like Christian Scholars (people that have dedicated their entire lives to this idea) have access to write for Wikipedia too…
The citations are from the same people we see over and over again on this topic (specifically on Wikipedia).
I shouldn't bother responding to this, but I have to point out that this weird assumption that scholars of Christianity are all Christian partisans seems pretty similar to people who say that climatologists are all biased in favor of a global warming hoax.
You don't think anyone goes into studying a field to challenge the orthodoxy? That's the fastest way to get famous. Even if the rest of your field hates you, you can make an incredibly lucrative career out of being "the outsider". I literally linked to a collection of experts who agree with you.
If you don't believe the experts, I guess it's fine. But it's weird when people use expertise on a subject as proof of bias to discredit expertise. It's just such a silly thing to do.
I think it’s a weird to assume the wiki-link that you posted is in support of the “Christ Myth Theory” (as they call it).
Read the contents of the wiki link you sent and check all of the citations, you’ll see that the Christian Scholars that contributed to writing the article aim to dismiss the theory by citing their own books.
Kinda cringey.
I don't feel compelled to argue an interpretation. The facts are well documented and their interpretations by experts available. What anyone chooses to do with these are of no real concern to me.
but then
It's weird how many people in this thread are vaguely debating the validity of the historical research into this question when one person has posted a link to a well cited article on this very very heavily studied subject.
Well cited article aren't proof of existenceof a man. Is spiderman real if enough people cite the comics? A group of influential people could gather and make their own circle of these myths and present it as a fact. And it isn't fucking new.
Religions and all their influence could force a lot of heavily studied subject to be skewed for their benefit. Hell, there were studies that were treated as standard making sugar and alcohol heavily beneficial for human beings. And we're talking about a person.
I didn't say which side I come down on. I just said that there is lots of information with plenty of high quality citations.
I'm really happy that everyone is a winner.
The evidence isn't even that strong, there i
just aren't that many people willing to risk becoming a pariah to dispute them.
If you are a Christian, there is no doubt Jesus existed. Any oblique reference to a rabbi who was persecuted hundreds years ago is considered evidence that Jesus existed. But no contemporaneous documentation exists.
If you're not a Christian, debunking all of those vague references that might be proof of a Jewish leader named Jesus just isn't particularly important, won't persuade anyone who believes Jesus was(is) God, and will paint a target on your back for terrorists.
Wait… you mean to tell me there’s not a collective of atheist Wikipedia writers that have dedicated their lives to the absence of religion and citing themselves on refuting evidence on Wikipedia?!?
Wouldn’t it be weird of every Wikipedia article on the historical validity of Jesus was written by Christian scholars that have dedicated their lives to their religion? It would be wild if they were just citing themselves in these Wiki articles in order to sell some books, wouldn’t it?
No, there arent a lot of texts from the 1st century AD about him. The majority by far stems from the second century or later.
There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.
The article you provided (if you read it) should actually serve to cast more doubt on the idea; it does not “answer the question to the affirmative.”
There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.
That implies each source says: "A man called Jesus was crucified". The article you provided (if you read it) should have told you otherwise.
Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, year 93-94: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
Tacitus's Annals, year 117: Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus
I didn’t provide any article. I read the one you linked.
In this most recent response, you are annotating sources from 93, and 117. Those years are notably (at minimum) 60 years after the supposed resurrection; and as such are not first hand accounts.
They very likely was someone named Jesus, because there were many people with that name. There was very likely someone named Jesus that was crucified, because many people were crucified. There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.
They very likely was someone named Jesus, because there were many people with that name.
The second one doesn't use that name. Read the sources.
There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.
Well of course, but that's common sense. Dead people stay dead as a rule.
I didn’t say the second one used “that name.” Read what I wrote.
There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.
The question in question was "Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?"
Jesus Christ is very specific. Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day… that is fake.
Well that's an entirely different question. Entirely different field.
"the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day" is for silly Christians.
The question under discussion here is about Roman-era history.
You suck ass at reading. The title of this post is asking about “Jesus Christ,” which we all know to mean the son of God and the guy that resurrected after 3 days.
The title of this post is asking about “Jesus Christ,” which we all know to mean the son of God and the guy that resurrected after 3 days.
lol no.... this thread is not talking about anything like that hahaha. Read it.
Obviously people don't come back from the dead or transform into cheddar cheese; we don't need historical research to tell us that.
His given name was יֵשׁוּעַ or Yeshua, which is Jesus in one speech-type, عيسى (ʿIsà) in another, as well as a lot of other variants.
'Christus' in Latin seems to refer to the same person; Tacitus wrote "called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"
I’m not debating with you the question that was asked as to start this thread. It’s visible to literally anyone that looks it.
If you wanted to answer a question that was not asked by the OP, that’s on you.
Agreed.
What do you think of what Ehrman says here at 1h45m25s that the mythicist theory isn't taken seriously by the academy because it's mostly pushed by people who seem eager to dunk on religion.
What do you mean by physical proof?
Some history is known by digging up physical stones n bones. Some is known by digging up texts.
There are multiple texts dated to the 1st century that all corroborate the story that a person called Jesus was crucified around 33AD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
It's weird how many people in this thread are vaguely debating the validity of the historical research into this question when one person has posted a link to a well cited article on this very very heavily studied subject.
There's even a link to a well cited article examining the skepticism of the historicity of Jesus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
I don't feel compelled to argue an interpretation. The facts are well documented and their interpretations by experts available. What anyone chooses to do with these are of no real concern to me.
Yeah there are plenty of historians who have done good work studying this and the academia is mostly settled. Not to say there's no controversy, but there's definitely an orthodox opinion.
In my experience, when it comes to debating the validity of religion, people tend to get far more emotional than other topics. People who are normally level-headed and quite logical tend to completely lose their ability to think rationally. And I mean both the people who argue for religion and against it.
Pretty clear that's the case here in the comments on this post.
Yep. This is one of those posts that should have just been a web search instead.
A literature search. The web is full of rubbish.
It’s almost like Christian Scholars (people that have dedicated their entire lives to this idea) have access to write for Wikipedia too…
The citations are from the same people we see over and over again on this topic (specifically on Wikipedia).
I shouldn't bother responding to this, but I have to point out that this weird assumption that scholars of Christianity are all Christian partisans seems pretty similar to people who say that climatologists are all biased in favor of a global warming hoax.
You don't think anyone goes into studying a field to challenge the orthodoxy? That's the fastest way to get famous. Even if the rest of your field hates you, you can make an incredibly lucrative career out of being "the outsider". I literally linked to a collection of experts who agree with you.
If you don't believe the experts, I guess it's fine. But it's weird when people use expertise on a subject as proof of bias to discredit expertise. It's just such a silly thing to do.
I think it’s a weird to assume the wiki-link that you posted is in support of the “Christ Myth Theory” (as they call it).
Read the contents of the wiki link you sent and check all of the citations, you’ll see that the Christian Scholars that contributed to writing the article aim to dismiss the theory by citing their own books.
Kinda cringey.
but then
Well cited article aren't proof of existenceof a man. Is spiderman real if enough people cite the comics? A group of influential people could gather and make their own circle of these myths and present it as a fact. And it isn't fucking new.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-dark-world-of-citation-cartels
Religions and all their influence could force a lot of heavily studied subject to be skewed for their benefit. Hell, there were studies that were treated as standard making sugar and alcohol heavily beneficial for human beings. And we're talking about a person.
I didn't say which side I come down on. I just said that there is lots of information with plenty of high quality citations.
I'm really happy that everyone is a winner.
The evidence isn't even that strong, there i just aren't that many people willing to risk becoming a pariah to dispute them.
If you are a Christian, there is no doubt Jesus existed. Any oblique reference to a rabbi who was persecuted hundreds years ago is considered evidence that Jesus existed. But no contemporaneous documentation exists.
If you're not a Christian, debunking all of those vague references that might be proof of a Jewish leader named Jesus just isn't particularly important, won't persuade anyone who believes Jesus was(is) God, and will paint a target on your back for terrorists.
Wait… you mean to tell me there’s not a collective of atheist Wikipedia writers that have dedicated their lives to the absence of religion and citing themselves on refuting evidence on Wikipedia?!?
Wouldn’t it be weird of every Wikipedia article on the historical validity of Jesus was written by Christian scholars that have dedicated their lives to their religion? It would be wild if they were just citing themselves in these Wiki articles in order to sell some books, wouldn’t it?
No, there arent a lot of texts from the 1st century AD about him. The majority by far stems from the second century or later.
There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.
The article you provided (if you read it) should actually serve to cast more doubt on the idea; it does not “answer the question to the affirmative.”
That implies each source says: "A man called Jesus was crucified". The article you provided (if you read it) should have told you otherwise.
Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, year 93-94: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
Tacitus's Annals, year 117: Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus
I didn’t provide any article. I read the one you linked.
In this most recent response, you are annotating sources from 93, and 117. Those years are notably (at minimum) 60 years after the supposed resurrection; and as such are not first hand accounts.
They very likely was someone named Jesus, because there were many people with that name. There was very likely someone named Jesus that was crucified, because many people were crucified. There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.
The second one doesn't use that name. Read the sources.
Well of course, but that's common sense. Dead people stay dead as a rule.
I didn’t say the second one used “that name.” Read what I wrote.
The question in question was "Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?"
Jesus Christ is very specific. Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day… that is fake.
Well that's an entirely different question. Entirely different field.
"the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day" is for silly Christians.
The question under discussion here is about Roman-era history.
You suck ass at reading. The title of this post is asking about “Jesus Christ,” which we all know to mean the son of God and the guy that resurrected after 3 days.
lol no.... this thread is not talking about anything like that hahaha. Read it.
Obviously people don't come back from the dead or transform into cheddar cheese; we don't need historical research to tell us that.
His given name was יֵשׁוּעַ or Yeshua, which is Jesus in one speech-type, عيسى (ʿIsà) in another, as well as a lot of other variants.
'Christus' in Latin seems to refer to the same person; Tacitus wrote "called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"
I’m not debating with you the question that was asked as to start this thread. It’s visible to literally anyone that looks it.
If you wanted to answer a question that was not asked by the OP, that’s on you.
Agreed.
What do you think of what Ehrman says here at 1h45m25s that the mythicist theory isn't taken seriously by the academy because it's mostly pushed by people who seem eager to dunk on religion.