Before you start getting really mad or say rude comments, In a way isnt the stuff we hear in the newspaper, history book, kind of the same thing as the life of Jesus. Ok we know things in history happened but you have to believe it happened. When the Revolution war happened none of us were there to see it, we have to believe that it happened (I know those things happened) Im just saying isnt it kind of the same thing in a way with the life of Jesus. Im not to use this by any means to convert someone, im just wondering isnt it the same in a way.
Whats the differance between History and the life of Jesus.?
- Thread starter Mike J
- Start date
Haunter of the Dark
New member
History can be viewed from many different sources and agrees with each other to a certian degree.
Jesus on the other hand...there is no historical reference to him.
The Romans never mentioned him and they were pretty anal about record keeping even down to olive oil shipments.
Jesus on the other hand...there is no historical reference to him.
The Romans never mentioned him and they were pretty anal about record keeping even down to olive oil shipments.
Do you think that if there were such a thing as newspapers, media, TV reporting, etc in Jesus' time, that they would not have recorded Jesus' life as history in the making? Of course they would. Jesus drew thousands of people to Him in large crowds. The media would have been all over that with their cameras, shoving microphones into their faces, asking ridiculous questions the same way they do in today's society.
There is no difference in history between the life of Jesus and any so-called 'historical event' that happens now. For example, why should I believe that Hitler killed millions of Jews? There are photos and some video of Him, and an "alleged" book he wrote, but how do we really know what happened? The media can never answer all of our questions. It is the same regarding WWI and WWII. It happened, but how do we really know what went on? Why millions of men risk their lives for such an event?
The only difference between ancient times and now, is the way the public perceives things because of "technology". We can't actually see the wars going on around the world today, but we know they exist. It's somewhat like the faith believers have in God. We can't see Him, but we know He exists.
There is no difference in history between the life of Jesus and any so-called 'historical event' that happens now. For example, why should I believe that Hitler killed millions of Jews? There are photos and some video of Him, and an "alleged" book he wrote, but how do we really know what happened? The media can never answer all of our questions. It is the same regarding WWI and WWII. It happened, but how do we really know what went on? Why millions of men risk their lives for such an event?
The only difference between ancient times and now, is the way the public perceives things because of "technology". We can't actually see the wars going on around the world today, but we know they exist. It's somewhat like the faith believers have in God. We can't see Him, but we know He exists.
Put simply: the difference is that history says Jesus did exist, religion says that Jesus was the son of god...well actually what religion says is the difference (assuming by religion you mean Christianity).
For instance, I would hope that you don't deny the existence of Buddha Siddartha, Muhammed, the dali lamma, etc. (sorry for the mispellings). The difference is that you don't believe these people to be god, their respective religions DO.
For instance, I would hope that you don't deny the existence of Buddha Siddartha, Muhammed, the dali lamma, etc. (sorry for the mispellings). The difference is that you don't believe these people to be god, their respective religions DO.
sailormandave
New member
Certainly many if not most historical accounts have a bias.
It's the role of historians to look at the aggregate, see how it fits into other documented issues of the time, physical evidence, etc to determine how confident they are in any given report.
A historical problem with the bible is that it contains many contradictions within itself and also many stories included in the bible about the life of Jesus and not consistent with some stories not included in the bible. Inclusion is not necessarily a proof of truth.
It's the role of historians to look at the aggregate, see how it fits into other documented issues of the time, physical evidence, etc to determine how confident they are in any given report.
A historical problem with the bible is that it contains many contradictions within itself and also many stories included in the bible about the life of Jesus and not consistent with some stories not included in the bible. Inclusion is not necessarily a proof of truth.
WellTraveledProg
New member
Professional historians really hate to use absolutes.
Because things happened when they couldn't see them, they don't usually say that something absolutely occurred or absolutely didn't -- instead they use levels of "confidence" in the descriptions we have of events and/or people.
When there's one source that recorded an event in the past, their confidence is low. Their confidence is also low when the only records we have came from people who didn't actually witness the event in question -- second hand reports are always less reliable than eyewitness accounts. They also consider the motivations that the writer may have had to "color" his record -- did he/she have a vested interest in telling a story a certain way? Were they a fan/friend/associate of the person they're writing about, or were they an enemy or a critic of the person? Such motivations also affect the confidence in the details of a record.
So, for example, if we talk about Julius Caesar...we have things he wrote himself (gives high confidence in his actual existence, and a good insight into his own thoughts). We have literally thousands of written records by eyewitnesses to the events in his life, some from friends and some from foes -- where they agree, confidence is high in the accuracy of the accounts because the biases even out. Where they disagree, confidence is lower -- unless there are other sources to refer to, we can't be very confident which of the conflicting stories is more accurate. Using all of the various sources, with careful study and cross-referencing, a history of Julius Caesar can be put together in which we can have fairly high confidence that it's accurate.
Now lets look at jesus: we have no writings from jesus himself. We have no eyewitness accounts of any kind (no, none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts). We have no records of jesus from those who would have been his "enemies" during his claimed life (Romans, Jews, etc.) during his lifetime. What we *do* have are a few *at least* second-hand accounts, from non-eyewitnesses, who have a vested interest in making him appear divine, good, to be a son of god, etc.
Using historical analysis, we can have very little, if any, confidence in the biblical records of the jesus character.
Peace.
Because things happened when they couldn't see them, they don't usually say that something absolutely occurred or absolutely didn't -- instead they use levels of "confidence" in the descriptions we have of events and/or people.
When there's one source that recorded an event in the past, their confidence is low. Their confidence is also low when the only records we have came from people who didn't actually witness the event in question -- second hand reports are always less reliable than eyewitness accounts. They also consider the motivations that the writer may have had to "color" his record -- did he/she have a vested interest in telling a story a certain way? Were they a fan/friend/associate of the person they're writing about, or were they an enemy or a critic of the person? Such motivations also affect the confidence in the details of a record.
So, for example, if we talk about Julius Caesar...we have things he wrote himself (gives high confidence in his actual existence, and a good insight into his own thoughts). We have literally thousands of written records by eyewitnesses to the events in his life, some from friends and some from foes -- where they agree, confidence is high in the accuracy of the accounts because the biases even out. Where they disagree, confidence is lower -- unless there are other sources to refer to, we can't be very confident which of the conflicting stories is more accurate. Using all of the various sources, with careful study and cross-referencing, a history of Julius Caesar can be put together in which we can have fairly high confidence that it's accurate.
Now lets look at jesus: we have no writings from jesus himself. We have no eyewitness accounts of any kind (no, none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts). We have no records of jesus from those who would have been his "enemies" during his claimed life (Romans, Jews, etc.) during his lifetime. What we *do* have are a few *at least* second-hand accounts, from non-eyewitnesses, who have a vested interest in making him appear divine, good, to be a son of god, etc.
Using historical analysis, we can have very little, if any, confidence in the biblical records of the jesus character.
Peace.
Historical events are examined from a variety of angles, and are not simply accepted as true from a single source. A historian will look at all the records, mentions in letters or diaries of the people involved, or of people with whom they were involved. Newspapers if they existed at the time relevant, or government records, all kinds of things.
Historians have been attempting for centuries to find evidence for the life of Jesus: not just facts about his life, but even whether or not there was such a person at all. The evidence is so scanty and so likely fraudulent that there's no reason to believe he ever existed. If the basic outline of his life as described in the Bible (and the four gospels do not agree with one another) were true, there would be records beyond one reference, probably inserted later, in the work of Josephus.
Historians have been attempting for centuries to find evidence for the life of Jesus: not just facts about his life, but even whether or not there was such a person at all. The evidence is so scanty and so likely fraudulent that there's no reason to believe he ever existed. If the basic outline of his life as described in the Bible (and the four gospels do not agree with one another) were true, there would be records beyond one reference, probably inserted later, in the work of Josephus.
scotgirl60
New member
For all those stating Jesus never existed, the writings of Paul, who personally knew some of Jesus' original disciples, were written only 20 years after the death of Jesus.
The Romans were not "anal" about keeping records. If they did -- where are ALL those records located? Are they lost? If they aren't lost, where are they? If they are lost -- how do you know what the records contained. It is a myth that the Romans kept such records.
The earliest known writings about Alexander the Great were written 400 YEARS AFTER his death -- yet historians still go to those writings as a credible source of history and documentation of Alexander's life.
So anyone saying Jesus didn't exist and citing the time elapsing between Jesus death and the earliest known writings about him should also not believe Alexander ever existed.
Further, the ancient people did not have the same sense of immediacy that we have today. And they were often passing around oral history before writing it down. That doesn't make the oral history untrue, and it doesn't make the written history untrue.
The Romans were not "anal" about keeping records. If they did -- where are ALL those records located? Are they lost? If they aren't lost, where are they? If they are lost -- how do you know what the records contained. It is a myth that the Romans kept such records.
The earliest known writings about Alexander the Great were written 400 YEARS AFTER his death -- yet historians still go to those writings as a credible source of history and documentation of Alexander's life.
So anyone saying Jesus didn't exist and citing the time elapsing between Jesus death and the earliest known writings about him should also not believe Alexander ever existed.
Further, the ancient people did not have the same sense of immediacy that we have today. And they were often passing around oral history before writing it down. That doesn't make the oral history untrue, and it doesn't make the written history untrue.