Was Jesus a Historical Figure?

No, it means only that you agree with what Glitterbag said..

As we look back at the very important event which took place in the empire under Tberius was trial and execution in Jerusalem of Jesus of Nazareth. But its significance was so little understood at the time that is passed unnoticed by imperial chroniclers until the rise of Christianity brought it to their attention.

Keep in mind too that much of the scholarly work about Jesus is being done at state and private universities by scholars who no not regard themselves as believers.

yeah, right.

I can bring convincing arguments from different websites to refute every point you are making in favor of the historical figure. There is in fact zero evidence he lived.

Again from writings attributed to Josephus Flavius:



Note: There are some who suggest there are some Christian interpolations edited into this passage too. Those disputing that theory say that the structure and style is pure Josephus and that if Christians had messed with the text, they would have made it conform to the accounts in the Four Gospels better. Both camps acknowledge that Josephus did reference John the Baptist, however.

While there is room to speculate on the accuracy of some of the legend related to King David just as there is regarding our own historical figures such as Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett, there are few serious scholars who question the archaeological evidence that King David did exist.

There are those who are so threatened by any possibility that the stories of Judaism or Christianity have any basis in fact, you of course can find deniers with presumed evidence that it was all made up. Such deniers are simply drowned out by all the serious scholars who have devoted large chunks of their lives into such research who are convinced that such historical figures lived regardless of the religious beliefs of the researchers.

In a loosely related context, I recently attended a lecture by Steven Collins PhD, one of our local archaeologists, who has spent a lot of the last seven years overseeing the excavation of Tall el-Hamman in Jordan. He related that most archaeologists do accept evidence of the existence of historical Bible figures etc. dating back a thousand or so years before Christ but are less willing to acknowledge evidence of the Bible stories predating that thousand or so years. In his work and study involved in the excavation of Tall el-Hamman, however, he is becoming convinced of a very real possibility that they are uncovering the ancient city of Sodom as related in the Old Testament. If so, that could begin to open up more archaeological evidence to support more of the historical accounts related in the Old Testament.

It is not the amount of evidence but the quality of the evidence and the acceptance of the evidence by scholars through the centuries which is significante.
Thus the evidence is overwhelmingly for the existance of Jesus.
As I pointed out before much of the scholarly work has been done at state and private universities.
I am not interested in arguments from different websites which can be run by amatures but books written by scholars who know what they a talking about and reference books with neutral references to what scholars have come up with. That is what I have been looking at.

This is an utterly false claim, especially the portion which i have emphasized.

There is a portion (two small references) in Josephus which is alleged to refer to Jesus, and these passages are considered by most reputable historians to be interpolation, which is to say that someone added the passage to a copy of the text long after it was written.



Source at "Early Christian Writings-dot-com,", which cannot possibly be construed as an anti-Christian web site.

The single passage in Tacitus, also certainly an interpolation, does not mention "Jesus," it only mentions a "Christus." Furthermore, the passage in question scans correctly if all the portion with the claptrap about Nero blaming the fire at Rome on Christians is removed. There is no record of any kind anywhere else that Nero "blamed" the fire in Rome on anyone, and at the time of the fire, no one, including those whom we now called Christians, called them Christians, and they didn't call themselves Christians. The passage in Tacitus does not say that any of it is true, only that there was such a group living in Rome. If the passage were accurate, one has to ask why absolutely no one else living at the time of the fire in Rome (64 CE), or at the time that Tacitus wrote (late first, early second century CE) mentions this attempt at exculpation for the fire, mentions Christians, or mentions Pontius Pilate. This last fact is significant for several reasons. As written, the interpolated passage mentions Pontius Pilate as though Roman readers would recognize the name, even though it refers to a minor official who held his office more than three generations before Tacitus wrote his account--which is highly unlikely. It describes Pilate as a procurator, while in fact, as we now know from other sources, including an archaeological find by the Israelis, Pilate was a prefect. Tacitus was himself a Roman official responsible for governing, and would not have made such a mistake, and if he had actually run across Pilate's name in records, would never have referred to him as a procurator. He'd have known that Pilate would not have held such an office, and no official record would have referred to him by that title. The inscription found by the Israelis clearly identifies Pilate as a prefect, and any Roman records Tacitus could have consulted would have referred to him in that manner, too. More damning still is that the office of procurator did not even exist at the time when Pilate was the prefect of Iudaea (what we call Judea). Finally, the office of procurator was created by Trajan at the time that Tacitus was writing his histories, so it is inconceivable that Tacitus (once again, a Roman official himself) would no have known that Pilate could not possibly have held an office which did not exist.

Not only is that passage almost certainly an interpolation, but historians are certain they know when it happened, that it was done by someone in the Vatican, and historians working in the Vatican do not dispute this--there is no mention of this passage in Tacitus by any Christian writer before the 15th century.

The sources for the claim that the Tacitus passage is an interpolation are so numerous, that by searching for "Tacitus+interpolation," Google returned more than three and three quarters million hits in less than one tenth of a second. Anyone who wishes is free to conduct the same search.

Pliny does not mention any Jesus, he only complains about Christians in a letter to the Emperor, Trajan. He mentions a "Christ," which from its Greek origins, would be a title for a "messiah," for a savior. Whether or not that would refer to an individual identified in the popular mind as Joshuah, which is rendered "Jesu" in Greek cannot be determined from Pliny's letter to his Emperor. Certainly he does not mention any Jesus as Fox falsely claims, and another false claim by Fox is the inferential claim that people were obliged to worship Trajan. People were only required to pay lip service to the civic religion of Rome, and to annual offer sacrifice to the Roman gods, which did not include the Emperor Trajan. Trajan basically outlines a "don't ask, don't tell" policy to him:



Source for both Pliny's letter to the Emperor, and Trajan's reply at "Early Christian Writings-dot-com"--once again, a site without an anti-Christian bias. It is gratifying to note, as Early Christian Writings demonstrates, that there are many Christians honest enough to acknowledge that there is no "indisputable" historical evidence for your boy Jesus.

In fact, Pontius Pilate is the only person in your short list there for which there is undeniable evidence, and that evidence was only uncovered by Israeli archaeologists in 1961.

Your opinion is noted Setanta and I'm sure it will be well received.

I suspect my sources are as reliable and as objective as yours, but oh well. I certainly don't intend to fuss about it.

So if a majority of scholars can agree that there was an historical figure of Jesus (aka, Emmanuel to family and friends), would the next logical question be whether he, during his life, claimed to be the Son of God, or part of a Trinity? That, in my mind, is the meaningful question.

I think the scholars can reasonably verify the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth based on what records there are to examine. But I don't think there is any evidence other than the witness of those who experienced or experience him to verify his divinity or what form that might take. And I doubt even the scholars who concur that he existed would be able to concur on that.

So far, no evidence.

What s0urces would those be, Fox? How reliable and scholarly can we assume that they are if you don't produce a link for them. I've linked Early Christian Writings for Flavius Josephus and Pliny, which i chose precisely because it's a Christian site, and therefore cannot be accused of fouling the waters with a prejudice against the evidence.

Whether or not you "note" my "opinion" is a matter of indifference to me. You stated that there is indisputable evidence, and that simply is not true. You stated that Tacitus and Pliny write of "Jesus," and that is simply not so. You state that Pliny's correspondence with Trajan was about people who were Christians who refused to worship the emperor--that is simply not so because Trajan was not deified, and no one expected anyone to "worship" Trajan.

If you post things which aren't true, it's hardly a matter of opinion for someone to contradict you, while providing sources for the contradiction.

Since i didn't provide a specific source for Tacitus, i'll go find a good one and post a link.

Click here for a detailed discussion of the likelihood that the passage in Tacitus' Annals is an interpolation.

If the vast bulk of Christianity is based on Paganism, as it seems to be, then it's unlikely that much of the Jesus story was literally true. The most prominent events in Jesus' life are all copied from pre-christian mythologies and religions.

I suppose it's possible that someone named Jesus attempted to live out the life passed down from Pagan myths and to subsume the role of those legendary heroes. But I suspect that the people of that time recognized the stories for what they were, astrological references.

There is also no physical historical evidence of Socrates. We only have the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

Does this mean that ancient figures such as Socrates and Jesus are merely the invention of ancient writers?

Is ancient history only verifiable through archaeological evidence?

I think we need to recognize different classes of evidence. Physical and empirical evidence are paramount in any evaluation, but a preponderance of overlapping corroborative historical record can also be compelling as long as it's not in conflict with the physical evidence. Physical evidence would always take precedence over historical records.

>>>>Just as a point of reference......is there any doubt that there was a King David, John the Baptist or Pontius Pilate?
I thought evidence existed that these men are historical figures.<<<<<<<<

........................................You are correct.

For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.

Take care then how you hear,
for to the one who has, more will be given,
and from the one who has not,
even what he thinks that he has will be taken away."