Is there any good evidence that jesus was a real person? [Spirituality & Religion]
I mean obviously there's no evidence of the supernatural aspects of his character, but is there anything that tells us that jesu was a real guy?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Yeah the Bible is generally considered one of the best historical records because
- It is a collection of dozens of books
- It was written almost immediately after the events
- There are tons of copies in many languages and regions
- It is well maintained
- No objections from hostile witnesses
- It is a collection of dozens of books
- It was written almost immediately after the events
- There are tons of copies in many languages and regions
- It is well maintained
- No objections from hostile witnesses
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@Professional:
It's full of contradictions;
Some parts were written hundreds of years after the supposed events;
Making multiple copies of a fairy story does nothing for its veracity;
Various "translations" contradict each other;
Challengers are shouted down and, in some cases, threatened with prosecution for "blasphemy";
It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's full of contradictions;
Some parts were written hundreds of years after the supposed events;
Making multiple copies of a fairy story does nothing for its veracity;
Various "translations" contradict each other;
Challengers are shouted down and, in some cases, threatened with prosecution for "blasphemy";
It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
@Professional: There are also other written accounts. The Roman and Jewish power structure at the time did everything they could possibly think of to erase His Name from history. It was the thousands and thousands of people who faced indescribably painful deaths within years of His ordeal that led to 2.2 billion followers in my personal opinion.
Xuan12 · 36-40, M
@Professional: Respectfully, just a few points.
-The size of a collection doesn't correlate to accuracy.
-The New Testament Books didn't really appear until about 30 years after the death of Jesus. Not too long, but not to really immediately either.
-The number of copies and languages does not correlate to accuracy, in fact, the numerous retranslations over the centuries are considered detrimental to accuracy.
-Lacking objections from witnesses doesn't correlate to accuracy, in fact, it probably indicates intentional omission.
-The size of a collection doesn't correlate to accuracy.
-The New Testament Books didn't really appear until about 30 years after the death of Jesus. Not too long, but not to really immediately either.
-The number of copies and languages does not correlate to accuracy, in fact, the numerous retranslations over the centuries are considered detrimental to accuracy.
-Lacking objections from witnesses doesn't correlate to accuracy, in fact, it probably indicates intentional omission.
@suzie1960: specific examples please?
@Xuan12: Thank you for a polite and non-sarcastic response - that's rare when discussing religion lol. I'll respond to a few of your points above:
- A lot of what you said doesn't correlate to accuracy is actually used a lot by historians and is used to say other historical documents to be accurate.
- The 30 years is actually very good for ancient history.
- To your point about hostile witnesses - the early church significantly challenged a lot of people's reputation and profession. They were eyewitnesses, so if it wasn't true they would have denied it. Just like if someone accused you of stealing from your boss's office you would likely deny it.
- Also I would refer you to the criterion of embarrassment. It applies in many cases in the Bible
- A lot of what you said doesn't correlate to accuracy is actually used a lot by historians and is used to say other historical documents to be accurate.
- The 30 years is actually very good for ancient history.
- To your point about hostile witnesses - the early church significantly challenged a lot of people's reputation and profession. They were eyewitnesses, so if it wasn't true they would have denied it. Just like if someone accused you of stealing from your boss's office you would likely deny it.
- Also I would refer you to the criterion of embarrassment. It applies in many cases in the Bible
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@Professional: Walabby lists a few of the contradictions here - https://similarworlds.com/2095421-I-Want-To-Critically-Discuss-The-Bible/574541-This-may-not-be-the-best-place-to-post-this-but-I
Did Adam and Eve write Genesis at the time they were supposedly created or immediately thereafter?
Is that what you meant?
Xuan12 has answered your argumentum ad populum.
Did Adam and Eve write Genesis at the time they were supposedly created or immediately thereafter?
Is that what you meant?
Xuan12 has answered your argumentum ad populum.
@suzie1960: Adam and Eve did not write Genesis - Moses did. I'm just going to give a stab at some of the answers to Walabby's post:
1. In that time it was common to skip "unimportant" generations in genealogies, so the Gospel writers could have disagreed as to who was important.
2. It is possible that both happened.
4. It is possible that one of the robbers mocked Jesus then later changed
5. It is possible that he said both things
I just gave a few that quickly jumped out at me.
1. In that time it was common to skip "unimportant" generations in genealogies, so the Gospel writers could have disagreed as to who was important.
2. It is possible that both happened.
4. It is possible that one of the robbers mocked Jesus then later changed
5. It is possible that he said both things
I just gave a few that quickly jumped out at me.
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@Professional:
If Adam and Eve didn't write Genesis, it wasn't written shortly after the event, it was written very much later so has to be considered unreliable.
Re your answers to Walabby's post -
1) It's not possible to skip generation between father and son.
2) Highly unlikely both could have happened.
3) ?
4) Again, highly unlikely.
5) Three different things were listed, not two. He might have said all three but it's surprising the three witnesses each only heard one of the three things.
6) ?
7) ?
If Adam and Eve didn't write Genesis, it wasn't written shortly after the event, it was written very much later so has to be considered unreliable.
Re your answers to Walabby's post -
1) It's not possible to skip generation between father and son.
2) Highly unlikely both could have happened.
3) ?
4) Again, highly unlikely.
5) Three different things were listed, not two. He might have said all three but it's surprising the three witnesses each only heard one of the three things.
6) ?
7) ?
@suzie1960 That one wasn't written until later - that is correct. Most of the Bible is history and considered very well-maintained. The Gospels were written with just a few decades in between.
To the Walabby ones (now that I have a little more time):
1. At that time when genealogies were written they often skipped generations. Being very interested in genealogy myself I view it as bad practice and would NEVER do it, but just because it skipped generations does not mean it is inaccurate.
2. I would refer you to Matthew 2. This account shows that the wise men did not arrive in Jerusalem immediately after Jesus' birth. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Jesus and family had some time to stay in Jerusalem prior to fleeing to Egypt. They would have brought him to the Temple during that time.
3. I don't see the contradiction. They both say Thursday he was handed over. John 18 does not explicitly say that they waited until Friday to crucify him, but that does not mean they didn't.
4. I don't see any reason to inherently dismiss it. I was doing a little further research and here is an article I found - http://evidenceforchristianity.org/was-it-one-thief-luke-or-both-matthew-who-mocked-jesus-how-can-you-resolve-this-discrepancyr/
5. Jesus was on that cross for a period of time. It is possible - likely - that he said multiple things. I do not see anything inherently strange there. Like when you go to the scene of an accident - different witnesses saw different things.
6. Here's a pretty good explanation I found - https://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-die.html
7. Bethany is on the Mount of Olives.
It was nice receiving a respectful response for a change, lol. If you want to continue to debate please feel free to respond.
To the Walabby ones (now that I have a little more time):
1. At that time when genealogies were written they often skipped generations. Being very interested in genealogy myself I view it as bad practice and would NEVER do it, but just because it skipped generations does not mean it is inaccurate.
2. I would refer you to Matthew 2. This account shows that the wise men did not arrive in Jerusalem immediately after Jesus' birth. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Jesus and family had some time to stay in Jerusalem prior to fleeing to Egypt. They would have brought him to the Temple during that time.
3. I don't see the contradiction. They both say Thursday he was handed over. John 18 does not explicitly say that they waited until Friday to crucify him, but that does not mean they didn't.
4. I don't see any reason to inherently dismiss it. I was doing a little further research and here is an article I found - http://evidenceforchristianity.org/was-it-one-thief-luke-or-both-matthew-who-mocked-jesus-how-can-you-resolve-this-discrepancyr/
5. Jesus was on that cross for a period of time. It is possible - likely - that he said multiple things. I do not see anything inherently strange there. Like when you go to the scene of an accident - different witnesses saw different things.
6. Here's a pretty good explanation I found - https://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-die.html
7. Bethany is on the Mount of Olives.
It was nice receiving a respectful response for a change, lol. If you want to continue to debate please feel free to respond.