Hey Veeky Forums, do you know of any objectively written books on the historicity of Jesus and/or bible? Specifically ones that try to come at it from a third party perspective and report the facts without taking a stance. I've read the bible, so please don't suggest that.
Also looking for any and all first hand accounts of Jesus/Bible events.
I don't want this to devolve into a "The bible is fact" vs. "Jesus isn't real" so please keep it to books and discussion of the contents of the books.
Other urls found in this thread:
reddit.com
twitter.com
there's no actual evidence
but most people believe someone like him existed.
I read on here about at least one Roman scholar who had a first hand account of Jesus. Was that bunk or is there some truth to it? If possible, do you have any book recommendations that go over the lack of evidence, or maybe disprove common false evidence? Looking for anything I can get my hands on to start looking at the objective history, no matter how it might conflict with my Christianity.
we don't have any contemporary sources for Jesus, though Josephus and Tacitus are close. They're pretty much it other than Celsus's polemic against christianity which includes what is most likely just a rumor that Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier.
Interesting. Do historians generally consider Josephus and Tacitus reliable sources?
I don't know much about the scholarly opinions on the sources in general, but I do know about what they think about the passages on Jesus that each of them wrote. Tacitus is considered reliable because the passage is very anti-christian so it probably isn't a forgery. Josephus's passage is an obvious forgery that calls Jesus the Messiah but most scholars think that it has a core that Josephus did actually write but was heavily edited by Christian scribes.
Bart Ehrman wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist?", Mostly in response to the new atheists that claim Jesus didn't exist. (He himself is an agnostic),
but basically the majority view among historians is that the historical Jesus did exist
>fucking beautifully handsome magical jew man turning water into wine and coming back from the dead
You'd think he'd have gotten more press
Thanks, I'll definitely check it out. Anything about the historiosity of the Bible/events of the Bible? I'm aware that the old testament Jewish migration and such is quite hotly debated and would greatly appreciate anything objective and historical on the subject, as well as the other events and claims of the bible.
Yeah but the argument isn't between "the gospels are completely true" and "Jesus isn't real".
Most serious (not crazy Christian evangelical) scholars think there was so kind of historical Jesus, a revolutionary or a preacher. That's not the same thing as all the stories that later got made up about him being true.
For the OT/Tanakh:
Two books from the 70s which called the historicity of the Pentateuch into question: John van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition and Thomas Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives.
Mario Liverani's Israel's History And the History of Israel. Liverani is a historian of the ancient Near East rather than a biblical scholar, so he places Israel in the archaeological and political context of the Near East.
David Carr's The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. Because the textual history of the Tanakh is as important as its historicity.
One of the mayor problems is time and scarcity of sources. There aren't more than a few lines of ancient writers about the historic figur of Jesus. So any conclusion you make is based on just a few lines, always in combination with jesus' legacy and the general picture of ancient society as a whole.
That being said, there is not only debate on did jesus really exist or not, there is (or at least was) some debate if certain pieces of text where indeed written by Tacitus, a student of his or a totally other person.
Lets remember we are talking about events that took 2000 years ago. It is a interesting question and certainly worth persuing. But it is also a question that never can be answered and that frustrates people.
Personally, I do belief that the historic figure existed. But I think the holy scriptures tried to give him a spin-off, quit succesfully so.
Some scholars think the bits in Josephus which discuss Jesus were later additions from Christian monks. Others do not. Some point out that Jesus was a pretty common name in 1st century Judea, and given the abundance of prophets at the time maybe it's coincidence.
He didn't existed and that's that, you inbred fucking cuck
shut the fuck and GTFO
It was Roman Iudea, stories about magical preachers, messiahs and other assorted nutcases came from there daily so no one cared. It just so happened Jesus managed to gain a following that peaked a few years after he carked it.
Also, most historians accept that a preacher named Jesus did exist in the area at the time, this isn't really a debate.
Bitch, untill the 1960's there wasn't even concrete historical evidence that Pontius Pilate existed.
>Jesus wad the bastard son of a Roman soldier
This explains a lot.
Jesus Christ was Julius Caesar
Just read the original sources yourself and make up your mind.
The fact that you can get through them in under 5 minutes should tell you enough tho.
You can't really make a historiographical argument for his non-existence. No academic takes the idea seriously.
Everything you want to know:
>reddit.com
I am somewhat read on the topic so I can try to answer your questions but you should read Ehrman and other authors for a thorough analysis.
>Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][33][34][35] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37] However, there is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[38]
Jesus certainly existed. The Old Testament however is a lot more of a mixed bag. There isn't really a strong consensus on the historicity.
Jesus was real, he was just over exaggerated
There's just as little evidence for the existence of Socrates.
This is great, I'm making a shopping list and heading to the bookstore this weekend. Do you, or others, happen to know of accounts on the historicity of the New Testament? I'm looking for a wealth of information to submerge myself in, so if it is a little anti-christian that's fine, though I would prefer purely empirical writing.
Prinary sources:
>Socrates 3
>Jesus 0
There aren't any primary sources for Jesus' life.
The bible is not be fact, but it is definitely an historical source.
How dare you, OP! Shame on you!
Jesus lives among us!
So, the greatest of the Roman historians wrote of Jesus.
Gee, I wonder if that's good enough for some autist on Veeky Forums.
Yes, and the secondary sources aren't even enough to read when taking a shit, that is the point.
“Despite the enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea”
--Bart Ehrman (the autistic godless hack writer and shit textual critic)
Yeah, except for most of the bible, the most historically accurate book known to mankind.
Does it get tiring having to sharpen all that edge?
Yes, I know several. Unfortunately they're in Swedish and they suck.
>not fact
>still a source
A source for what?!?
"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"
--Bart Ehrman
It's like you don't know what your own source cites.
How do you even function?
You didn't read his post correctly, he wasn't saying there was no historical Jesus.
In fact virtually no one has said that in this thread.
The NT is not a primary source.
Hmmmm, let's see just who has written about this Jesus fellow over the past 2000 years.
Thallus (52AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Celsus (175AD)
Josephus (37-101AD)
Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
Julius Africanus (c. 160 - c. 240)
Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)
Hadrian, emperor of Rome, 117-138 C.E
Maimonides 13th century
It's much easier to function when you don't have to continually keep your edges sharpened.
What year did Jesus die?
Matthew, apostle of Jesus, lived with him for 3 1/2 years.
Peter, apostle of Jesus, lived with him for 3 1/2 years.
John, apostle of Jesus, lived with him for 3 1/2 years.
Paul, apostle of Jesus, lived with him for up to 3 years.
First hand, eyewitness accounts.
Every single book in the New Testament is an eyewitness account of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but for Luke who said he made an orderly compilation of what other men wrote, and who also wrote the Acts of the Apostles after the resurrection.
James, half-brother of Jesus, wrote one book.
Jude, half-brother of Jesus, wrote one book.
In fact, you might be quite insane to stand for the proposition that none of the NT books are primary sources.
Quite insane indeed.
He did not put down his source's views. I did.
33AD if I remember correctly. Which means that according to that chart nobody wrote about him until 19 years had passed. Good evidence for his existence guys
That doesn't even make sense.
32 AD
Do historians write about the past, or the future?
Is it a shock to you to find out that historians write about the past?
What's the question you're really asking? If I had to deduce the fundamental truth you're asking yourself I would say this:
"Iesus Christi" is literally God. The only question is if the historical personage of Jesus was God incarnate, the third part of the Holy Trinity. He probably was. The only thing is- in an age of scientific materialism- you can't prove it.
Regardless, I would hypothesize that God does indeed walk the earth, and may have had many incarnations as per the Hindu "Avatar mythos".
It would also not surprise me if Earth were the Center of the Universe.
He said...
>basically the majority view among historians is that the historical Jesus did exist
...learn how to read.
He meant that those aren't valid sources and everyone agrees to that. They're heavily biased
Relax. Take a break from the internet for a while. There's nothing that says you have to understand everything.
Differences were that the very real Jesus was fully human, while mythical Hindu avatars were not.
Even evangelical scholars don't back the claims you just made.
Learn some reading comprehension. I put down what Bart Ehrman's views were.
Not "among historians", you twit.
Oh, yes, let's find some unbiased historians to tell us about the most famous man who ever walked the earth.
Oh, shit, there are none.
What do?
Then they are either very immature Christians or educated but godless fools.
>book of Matthew
Not written by Matthew
>book of Mark
Not written by Mark
And so on.....
t. Ahmed
>Is it a shock to you to find out that historians write about the past?
No. But it is a shock that thinks he listed any primary sources.
Except the point Bart Ehrman made in his book was that the majority of scholars accept the historicity of Jesus.
And you attacked the poster for claiming Bart Ehrman said Jesus didn't exist, when the poster you attacked said the opposite, you blithering illiterate fruitcake.
Matthew. Written by Matthew.
Mark. Written by John Mark, from what Peter told him.
And so on.
Why would someone named Ahmed be claiming the Bible is the most historically accurate book in human history
The gospels are primary sources.
The bible is not being put up for peer review.
It is the Word of God. Deal with it on its terms, or not at all.
Islamo-Christians come out with all kinds of shit.
Reread the posts in question, and come to the opposite conclusion. Then slink away.
Relying on Bart Ehrman for any information on Jesus is a dubious proposition at best. May as well rely on Dan Brown.
Or you're just an idiotic asshole.
I vote that.
>Islamo-Christians
what
Islam and Christianity are two different religions. Why would a Muslim be defending the Bible
A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts
Matthew. Eyewitness. Wrote the gospel according to Matthew.
John Mark. Eyewitness. Was the little naked boy in the Gethsemene story. Wrote what Peter told him to write.
John. Eyewitness to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, and also to the Second Coming as related in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul, converted on the Road to Damascus, spent years with Jesus in Arabia being taught the New Covenant. Another eyewitness to the risen Christ Jesus.
James, brother of Jesus, eyewitness.
Jude, brother of Jesus, eyewitness.
All.
Primary.
Sources.
One can use advanced technology to do things that are beyond the comprehension of bronze aged peoples, while still being fully human. The questions would be: what really existed in human prehistory (Atlantis etc) that led to the formation of those "myths"; what is the truth behind the "stories". We know the "Great Flood" actually occured; whether advanced technology, or "magics" also existed in prehistory is another question entirely. Regardless of whether Jesus/avatars actually performed miracles is irrelevant to the fundamental question of the Christian Faith.... which is given the character of who "God" is; in a given circumstance "What would Jesus do"?
How are two different sects from the same branch of Judaism "different religions"?
You're an idiot, the poster you randomly attacked because you can't read properly was defending the historicity of Jesus and recommending a book on the subject.
Now shuffle off.
This is one of the most retarded things I have ever read on the internet.
One cannot create the universe, being fully human, no.
Jesus was as much man as though he were not God, but he is also as much God as though he were not man.
He did not start life conceived in his mother's womb like you and I.
He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the almighty, and creator of the universe.
The 330,000,000 Hindu gods are merely demons.
Both Islam and Judaism reject Jesus as God; so in that, they're very similar.
The quran actually affirms the bible as the Word of God, and expects the people of the book to follow it.
However, when pressed, the muslim will say that over time the bible was corrupted and can no longer be trusted to say what it used to say.
In that way Islam directly contradicts the heart of Christianity, the death and resurrection of the Son of God, Christ Jesus.
It is therefore another gospel about a different Jesus told to a man by an angel, and thus accursed.
Matthew
>Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.
Mark
>Most scholars also reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative
Luke
>The most probable date for its composition is around 80–100 AD, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.
John
>The Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in John 21:24,[15] who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars.[1][16][Notes 5] Nevertheless, the author of the fourth Gospel is sometimes called John the Evangelist, often out of convenience since the true name of the author remains unknown.
Your bible may be Holy. It may be True. But it is, by definition, NOT a primary source.
Zero percent chance this is not a lie.
>Both Islam and Judaism reject Jesus as God
So do some branches of Christianity,
Orthodox Jews reject Jesus as God but both of the sects of Judaism termed Islamo-Christianity recognise Jesus as the Messiah.
Get your information from inspired sources. The Christian church for thousands of years has said that Matthew is the tax collector, who wrote about Jesus as the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Lion, in Hebrew to the Hebrews. Hence a genealogy from Jesus' parents to King David, sidestepping the Jeconiah curse, to prove Jesus' claim to the throne is valid.
John Mark wrote Mark, next, not first, and depicted Jesus as the Ox, the Suffering Servant, from Peter's recollections and to the Romans. No genealogy, no birth, no death; nobody cares about those things with regard to servants.
Luke wrote of Jesus the Son of Man, giving a genealogy from Jesus all the way back to Adam, to the Greeks.
And John wrote of the Eagle, the Son of God, to the world.
All.
Primary.
Sources.
More and more early dating evidence puts the gospels in the 30's and 40's.
Your tired old wiki info is based on the gospels not mentioning the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and their attempt to distance the writing of the gospels as far away from the events as possible.
Because that's what godless people do.
Ignore that cunt with the RPG prose you replied to.
Islam fundamentally denies the current Bible's authenticity. Therefore, it would be contradictory to find a devout Muslim defending the current Bible as the most historically accurate book in man's history.
Similarly, you can find some Protestants who think the Bible was messed up by the Catholics--it would be just as ludicrous for someone to hold that claim yet tout the Bible as the unaltered word of God, or a practicing Jew to do the same.
Then it isn't a branch of Christianity, but only claims to be.
Look, neither the Jews nor Muslims admit that they have no God. They both think they worship the one true God.
Neither one in fact does.
If you have the Son, Jesus, you have the Father as well. If you do not have the Son, neither do you have the Father.
For Jews and Muslims to be saved, they must confess that Jesus is Lord, believing in their hearts God raised him from the dead, like anybody else.
and then they're no longer Jews and Muslims, which is a huge problem for both groups.
>inspired sources
Is this code for 'sources that meet my confirmation bias'
Papist bullshit spotted. Hellbound whore worshiper noted and discarded.
Bye papist. See you never!
Why the hell hasn't our proddieposter been banned? Don't we have rules against shitposting?
No, it's code for "godless people have zero chance of understanding the things of God".
It's like we found a race of Martians, and instead of asking a Martian about their culture, you asked an Australian about Martian culture.
Didn't you just answer your own question?
>Thou shalt not have any gods before Me.
>Except my son, who is also me at the same time. And my spirit or something. But they're all still me, because some old Latin fellas decided this was the right version of Christianity. And if this doesn't make sense to you, I will burn you in hellfire for all eternity.
I mean what do you expect? A signed letter to future generations?
>"Hey guys, I'm Jesus Christ, totally God and the Son of God. "
>Signed, IC
>In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.
Write for me an account of something you personally experienced a few years ago: not a primary source.
The "me" is Jesus.
Two years ago, I wrote to a godless shit head that his knowledge of the gospels was absolute and utter trash.
Oh, wait, that was today.
I'm not religious, just going off what I hear from Christians in Texas.
Also
>whore worshipper
What did you mean by this?
>Then it isn't a branch of Christianity, but only claims to be.
Opinion discarded. There are multiple branches of Christianity and no one has the authority, let alone some nobody on a Korean messaging forum, to decide which ones "aren't Christianity".
The bible isn't single book, it is an enormous collection of writings and Islam backs most of it but says there has been some corruption.
Then who did he spend his time praying to? Also why did he talk about himself in the third person constantly?
Patripassian heretic! BURN IN HELL!
The RCC is the Whore of Babylon, and they worship the Queen of Heaven.
Nobody but papists call Christians "Protestants".
Actually, I do.
Even if Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke, etc. That is still all AFTER THE FACT and therefor NOT a primary source.
Learn2definition
The trinity is relational even within himself. The Son prayed to the Father, and the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.
Learned a new word today! Woot! This is just Sebellianism (sp) by another name.
Not modes, persons. At the baptism of Jesus, the Son of God was baptized; the Father spoke from heaven; the Holy Spirit lit on the Son like a dove.
All at the same time.
>Islam backs most of it
It really doesn't. The pecking order is as follows:
Quran > Sunnah > Bible
The rule of thumb is, so long as it doesn't contradict the former two things, its fine to practice it but it is not considered a protected book, much like the Sunnah