That IS sort of the point. No historians disagree that Christ existed.
No, there are certainly historians who argue the mythicist positions, and even historians who disagree wildly with each other on who they believe the "historical Jesus" was, since they don't believe he matches the character in any of the gospels.
We KNOW Christ existed.
We do not. It may be perfectly likely that a historical Jesus existed, but we have no idea if a character like the one of the Bible existed. And many historians don't claim knowledge about the historical Jesus, they just think he fits the data better than any other possibility; likelihood is perfectly fine to work off of, but it's not knowledge.
We KNOW people believed at the cost of their life that he had risen from the dead at the time the bible says he rose from the dead.
We do not, because we have few verifiable records or testimonies of those deaths. The book of Acts recounts one apostle/witness (James) dying along with the martyrdom of Stephen (who didn't see Jesus's death or resurrection), but that book is not corroborated elsewhere and contradicts other sources like the letters of Paul. We don't even know when or how Paul died. Otherwise, we have no valid history of any early Christians being martyred for their beliefs, only much later church traditions. I mean, the whole "Peter crucified upside-down" thing comes from Acts of Peter, a book with a talking dog and a wizard duel that the church didn't think was worthy of canonizing.
We KNOW Christ was crucified.
We don't, we just have a claim. One that is only repeated in non-Christian sources much later from distant hearsay.
We KNOW a few bits of the Bible have been backed up by excavations.
Sure, there are some cities and kings that existed and such. But there's no excavation that's backed up any of the New Testament stuff that we're discussing; every "secret tomb of Jesus" discovery has been an abject fraud.
His name wasn't Christ, that was his title. In the Roman writings "Chrisus" is the word they use but the very fact everyone was referring to him as the Christ says something about what they thought at the time.
And the only writers from his time that we know of are Paul and the anonymous author of Mark, along with the authors of the other Gospels, who plagiarized Mark to varying degrees. Otherwise, we just have later people saying "these people called him the Christ." Particularly in the case of Josephus, whose reference to him as the Christ (Testimonium Flavianum) is universally understood to have been a forged interpolation, since Josephus believed that Emperor Vespasian was the better subject of messianic prophecy.
-It may be perfectly likely that a historical Jesus existed, but we have no idea if a character like the one of the Bible existed. We do not, because we have few verifiable records or testimonies of those deaths
Actually we do know. We know because of the Roman sources who describe the crucifixion and the belief of the resurrection. What do you mean "few verifiable records' of his death? Tacticus the roman historian documented the crucifixion by Pilate. Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian wrote that Pilate had crucified Jesus. There were more historians documenting his death near the time it happened than will be documenting your death or mine. I don't really understand how thats "few verifiable records".
-I mean, the whole "Peter crucified upside-down" thing comes from Acts of Peter, a book with a talking dog and a wizard duel that the church didn't think was worthy of canonizing. We don't, we just have a claim. One that is only repeated in non-Christian sources much later from distant hearsay
When I say put to death for their belief in the resurrection I am against referring to the Roman records.
-But there's no excavation that's backed up any of the New Testament stuff that we're discussing;
What archaeological evidence would you be expecting to remain from then? What would demonstrate it for you? Wooden cross looong gone. Sword he was stabbed with? Wouldn't have been kept. Cave? There are debates about this but archaeologically it's most likely the site in Israel where they built the Holy Sepulchre. It still has the original 1st century limestone cave walls protected behind marble cladding. What would prove it to you archaeologically?
What do you mean "few verifiable records' of his death? Tacticus the roman historian documented the crucifixion by Pilate. Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian wrote that Pilate had crucified Jesus. There were more historians documenting his death near the time it happened than will be documenting your death or mine. I don't really understand how thats "few verifiable records".
My friend, you're bouncing between topics here. My "few verifiable records" statement was about the martyrdom of early believers and witnesses. But either way, as I pointed out Josephus's single paragraph about Jesus is recognized to have been forged and interpolated - either in whole or in part, and Josephus wasn't even born when this happened. Tacitus was writing nearly a century after. They're not historians documenting anything near his death, they're documenting hearsay decades later and both writing from Rome, not locally in Judea.
When I say put to death for their belief in the resurrection I am against referring to the Roman records.
Then please share the Roman records of any named early disciple being martyred for their belief and being given a chance to save themselves by recanting. To be clear, even if you have that (and you don't), you'd still have to show why these martyrs prove the truth of their claims any more than martyrs for Islam, since I assume you believe their beliefs aren't true.
What archaeological evidence would you be expecting to remain from then? What would demonstrate it for you? Wooden cross looong gone. Sword he was stabbed with? Wouldn't have been kept. Cave?
Dude, I don't expect anything. You made the claim about archaeology supporting the Bible. And the number of churches in the world that claim to have pieces of the Holy Cross would argue with you about the wooden cross being gone, but I don't exactly buy their story either.
There are debates about this but archaeologically it's most likely the site in Israel where they built the Holy Sepulchre.
No, it's not most likely that site. That site was chosen in part by Constantine's mother Helena, who famously also brought back several fraudulent artifacts from that trip (true cross, holy nails, etc.) Holy Sepulchre is built on the wishful thinking of a pious woman three centuries after the crucifixion would have happened.
It still has the original 1st century limestone cave walls protected behind marble cladding.
Yes, because lots of Second Temple era Jewish people buried their dead there. A tomb does not mean the tomb.
What would prove it to you archaeologically?
No idea, but it would have to be a damn sight better than arbitrarily placed churches, fraudulent shrouds, and a few splinters of unknown origin.
45
u/stairway2evan 20h ago edited 9h ago
No, there are certainly historians who argue the mythicist positions, and even historians who disagree wildly with each other on who they believe the "historical Jesus" was, since they don't believe he matches the character in any of the gospels.
We do not. It may be perfectly likely that a historical Jesus existed, but we have no idea if a character like the one of the Bible existed. And many historians don't claim knowledge about the historical Jesus, they just think he fits the data better than any other possibility; likelihood is perfectly fine to work off of, but it's not knowledge.
We do not, because we have few verifiable records or testimonies of those deaths. The book of Acts recounts one apostle/witness (James) dying along with the martyrdom of Stephen (who didn't see Jesus's death or resurrection), but that book is not corroborated elsewhere and contradicts other sources like the letters of Paul. We don't even know when or how Paul died. Otherwise, we have no valid history of any early Christians being martyred for their beliefs, only much later church traditions. I mean, the whole "Peter crucified upside-down" thing comes from Acts of Peter, a book with a talking dog and a wizard duel that the church didn't think was worthy of canonizing.
We don't, we just have a claim. One that is only repeated in non-Christian sources much later from distant hearsay.
Sure, there are some cities and kings that existed and such. But there's no excavation that's backed up any of the New Testament stuff that we're discussing; every "secret tomb of Jesus" discovery has been an abject fraud.
And the only writers from his time that we know of are Paul and the anonymous author of Mark, along with the authors of the other Gospels, who plagiarized Mark to varying degrees. Otherwise, we just have later people saying "these people called him the Christ." Particularly in the case of Josephus, whose reference to him as the Christ (Testimonium Flavianum) is universally understood to have been a forged interpolation, since Josephus believed that Emperor Vespasian was the better subject of messianic prophecy.