Historical Jesus

After some further research i came to the conclusiom tha the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud is not the one of the bible. This raised some further questions like:How can we know if the Jesus others historians like Josephus mentioned is the one of the bible? Do we really need to evaluate historical data and say that we dont know if Jesus was a historical person?

That doesn’t affect the credibility at all. If you want to believe, you can, and history, science can not take that away in this instance as they can easily with all lesser claims.

A nitpick here to avoid promoting something that I think needs to be put in its place: “science cannot weigh in on some things, like it can on purely physical claims.” Otherwise you make it sound like science is always disproving anything religious, or that belief or religion must desperately flee to whatever nether-regions it can find to escape the merciless judgments of science against it. I know that many (including you?) love to think of it in exactly those terms. But real science (I argue) is actually better than that - in that it voluntarily recognizes its own limitations with regard to belief in general, and is obliged to focus on where its domain can reach - and can helpfully critique beliefs that happen to intersect with that.

1 Like

Well said as ever Mervin, but its domain easily reaches belief. I can’t think of any other claim that equals let alone tops the Incarnation. All others are subservient to it and cannot stand alone beyond the reach of science. Apart from those that can be rationally extrapolated to.

Dear Klax thats is blind faith. Can you believe something who has no roots in history? Ressurection belief is one thing and it requires faith. But if Jesus didnt existed then theres no reason for having any faith at all

I agree with Klax.

I feel that ultimately there is no concrete scientific proof that a God exists. Even if we can find concrete proof that a God exists that created the laws that resulted in the universe I don’t see how we could prove it’s Yahweh.

I don’t see any solid historical proof for Jesus being alive. The best proof is the fact that people believed in him and was willing to die under the Roman Empire for their faith in him. They were willing to isolate themselves from their Jewish friends and family thst would have called them cults following a witch empowered by the devil.

But even then, there has been multiple cults that have existed where the people had enough faith to kill and kill themselves. There are a bunch of pagans who sincerely believe in magical crystals, praying to “ old gods” of nature and they face persecution by family for their “phases”. So the fact that many followed him does not necessarily mean anything either.

I do think that the resurrection is a very critical aspect to the historical Jesus. No way we can prove he rose from dead and went away to heaven. Did he literally fly away behind the clouds and vanish to another dimension? We can’t prove it.

There are tons of people, myself included, who has had prayers answered in a way that just seems more likely to have been divine interaction. But I know muslims and pagans that swear the same thing happened with them.

So I don’t believe there is any scientific, or historical concrete beyond a doubt proof that God or Jesus exists or that the claims made about them are true.

I’m perfectly fine with “blind faith”. It’s still 100% faith. That faith is what permits me to believe in the Bible. Without faith, the Bible is no greater than ancient Asian sutras, Golden tablets that fell from the sky, the horrors of Lovecraft or the Quran. It’s my faith in God that allows me to place my faith in the Bible. It’s my faith in God that allows me to place my faith in Jesus. Without my Faith in God Jesus would just be a man, even if he was a supernatural empowered man. He would be no different from the other self professed messiahs, the power called
Simon the witch, or even Hercules.

It’s not the gaps in science , or the potential in history, that makes my faith. It’s my faith that allows me to see credibility in those empty places.

No it’s reasonable faith. Nothing in history, i.e. science, says that a Galilean carpenter turned radical rabbi didn’t exist two thousand years ago. Why should history, i.e. any document of the time, note such a non-entity?

There is nothing but scientific and rational proof that He doesn’t, that He isn’t needed to explain anything at all. The laws weren’t created even if He does exist. But if He does exist, He is revealed only in Jesus.

1 Like

As stated in the private messages.

I don’t believe that science disproves God.
I don’t believe that history disproves Jesus. That’s not the same as saying science and history proves them. I think science and history leaves a door that can lead to them, and that faith is the key.

I know to many that concrete 100% proof is problematic. And it is. It makes proving God , Jesus and the word as real impossible. But faith allows us to do it. Faith can move a mountain. ( figuratively ). The Holy Spirit is an amazing gift from God. It’s something that can’t be proven either but I am confident in it. I am also confident that the same power is able to take any seeds I plant in the lost and turn it into a tree that gets grafted into the tree of life.

I don’t look at the harmonization that BioLogos is committed to with science and faith is proving it’s real but is instead focused on showing how it does not have to mean atheism.

Gonna quote the same thing in conversation with mi krumm to you Klax

But then theres no reason for any of this right? Biologs ,apologetics etc etc. No reason to exist at all. Nonreason to engage with sceptics and non believers.Yet there they are . You have a point. But at least i would be fine with some evidence rather than none. Also i think we can rpovide some explanation on your questions . Not all of them of course. But i mean if the main character isnt even in History how can you believe it? If there is evidence for the historical Jesus then theres a chance that the gospels are true and reliable no? But if theres not any then everything crumbles. Do you see my reasoning here?

Of course I do Nick. Perfectly reasonable reasoning. But the Holy Spirit cleaves between bone and marrow : ) And aye, all is vanity, as the preacher said. I’m more than happy to engage with sceptics and non-believers as I have one of each in me. They aren’t the problem. Believers are the problem. Evidence is utterly irrelevant as it is utterly unnecessary. I can believe in Jesus because His contemporaries Paul and the rest of the Church did, and because the story is compelling, the story in the much later gospels, and because I want to. And I can make it all work. I can do that work of faith. Blessed am I in that regard. It is utterly futile to look for Jesus and therefore God in history, science. Any claim to have found Him is a delusion or lie.

Then i guess Klax theres no reason to reach to those who dont believe . So what do you do if someone asks you? Do you just say i believe this ,this and that without evidence? Do you say to them that since there are no evidence i cant discuss it with you? How according to you someone becomes a Christian and doesnt stay an atheist? Whats the reason then discussing all these things at Biologos if we are believing in something that has not historical basis?

Also

And look him where? If Jesus walked the earth it must be in history. The gospels themselves must be in history. The church must have been in history. If not then what?

No one is saying don’t reach out to the lost. You are commanded to carry out the great commission. We are commanded to be a light, uncovered, on a hill at night. No one is saying don’t share the evidence for your faith.

What is being said is that without faith, the evidence is not enough.

Again, let’s say you found 100% evidence that a man named Jesus lived and that he started a following and was killed and three days later his tomb was empty. What’s the proof you see? A few citations that some man lived and what people believed of him? That’s far from verifying 99% of the Bible. Faith implies a gap that must be bridged without solid proof.

And understandably so. But that gap needs to be a “small” one like the ressurection. If there isnt any evidence a man like that ecen existed then thats not even evidence for your faith

I say what I say here Nick. Nobody ever asks but believers. And that’s from a position of unbelief. They believe in nonsense that gets in the way. And I wouldn’t dream of telling anyone else. They aren’t starving for my bread. Every story ever written that we have a record of, is by definition in history, that doesn’t make it true.

I don’t think the resurrection is a small gap.

But Klax then we have to be sceptical about completely evrything. I mean how did you came in that conclusion? Like do you suggest the things written for Aristotle for example might be not real?

We have warrant for believing in Aristotle and his works. And yes we do have to be sceptical of all claims. Especially by believers. I come to that conclusion because otherwise my bank account would be empty and I’d be living on the street. As it is I’ve been robbed by religion and others due to my sufficient gullibility. Experience is the hardest and best teacher. I want to be robbed by Jesus however.

Do we have that for Jesus?

If you mean giving money away then im sorry. But i guess klax thats more of a denomination thing? (I knew many protestant megachurches require donations etc etc)

We have less warrant for Jesus because of the nature of the claims about Him. All denominations beg for money. I was in a cult where it was mandatory.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.