Why do people insist on the claim that most scholars agree that Jesus Christ was a historical figure.?

Question

I have never known a scholar to make that claim. I have personally found in all my research that the Biblical Jesus Christ probably never existed at all. What is your take on it?

Answer 1

What's your proof that He didn't? It is in History books in Israel and the Middle east. It's not a falacy... Christ DID exist and still does.

Answer 2

I think it's down to the fact that so many people believe he existed. Christians are relying solely on blind faith to prove the existence of him. Organised religion has contributed massively and still does today by offering spiritual salvation to those who beleive in what they are selling.

The more informed believers will be aware of the fact that other religions do acknowledge Jesus' existence, he is mentioned in the Qu'ran and is regarded as one of several Prophets by Muslims (although not as the son of God as Chrisitans believe).

There are also several contemporary non religious texts which seem to be written by noteworthy scholars which explore the life and legacy supposedly left by Jesus. Most notably The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln which explores the idea that Jesus had a wife and child and his bloodline is still intact today. An idea which was plagiarised and made into the fictional murder novel and subsequent film The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. This brought the idea to mass popular culture and many people believe the book is based on solid evidence.

My personal take is that people love a conspiracy theory. So much mystery surrounds the very idea of Jesus' existence that any fact which may or may not have proved his existence has been diluted a thousand times by the exaggeration and hearsay of people recounting tales. A whole religion with several sects and offshoots is based on the idea of one man's existence with no evidence other than the followers blind faith, therefore people will go out of their way to back this up with psuedo facts. After all, people have invested so much time, spirituality and money to protect what they feel is sacred to them. And the many churches across the land are not about to throw that away by suddenly turning around and saying "Hey, fooled ya!!"

To those who say "Christianity would not be here if he didn't exist", are you aware that there are many other religions out there which all will have begun somewhere, are you saying the millions of followers of these are wrong?

Answer 3

As another answerer here commented, it's hard to believe that a movement that people were willing to die for en masse, and that basically conquered much of the world through faith, just spontaneously started up on the back of a made-up person. I think that something like that would have been "outed" long ago if that were the case.

Actually, most secular historians accept that Jesus Christ was a real person, even if they don't believe in some of the miracles, or that He was God. The idea that He never existed is an extreme minority viewpoint. There are probably more would-be "atheists" on Yahoo R&S who believe He didn't exist than there are bona fide historians who believe that. Most of the atheist-trolls I've run across on this forum either don't have adequate knowledge of Christian theology and history or deliberately set up "strawmen" to knock down.

I've taken several university courses on Jesus and on the New Testament (from a public state university), taught from the historical/critical viewpoint by professors who don't really believe he was God but who concede that He was a real person, based partly on writings from many sources.

One argument they covered was the question "Why didn't the Romans write a lot about Jesus, and why didn't they keep records of Him?" Well, if you know something about the history of that time and place you will know that there were many Messianic prophets, revolutionarys, and rabble rousers in Judea and Samaria during that time. A few of them are even mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles in the NT. One more guy who ended up dying a criminal's death on the Cross, and who preached that His kingdom was not of this world, but of the next, probably wouldn't get as much attention. Most people back then were looking for a David-type Messiah who would throw off the Roman yoke and set up a kingdom right here on earth. Jesus and His followers just weren't considered that important by the Romans at the time and weren't on their radar until much later when they'd gained a somewhat larger following and persisted in their beliefs.

Answer 4

Seeking for proof of existence is counter to faith. That would be a dead end street.

Yes, there is a historical study of Jesus. (See Wikipedia)

The historical aspect can be attributed to his influence in humanity. Simply put, a historical perspective says that anyone who has an influence in human development must have existed and must have a historical origin. A good historical aspect does not conflict with the biblical aspect of Christ. The historical aspect is merely a means of understanding the humanity of Christ.

Finding Christ's existence ultimately takes you on a road of faith that even brings others to mystical connection with Christ. It is an experience.

A good way to start is to ask the question... "What must a person do 2000 ago for Him to have an influence this strong?"

God Bless

Answer 5

The scholars that make that claim are the Theologians. The secular scholars are not asked. Supposedly a famous Jewish historian that lived in the first century and wrote down much of their history recorded the claims and death of Jesus, thus in the eye of the Christian is historical proof he existed.

However they reject the geological evidence that suggests they have found the tomb of Jesus buried with his wife Mary and a son. They reject anything that goes against their already held belief even when Scripture teaches something they reject that if it goes against their religious belief. They will accept any so called evidence if it proves what they want it to.
BB

Answer 6

I think most scholars work with the assumption that Jesus as an historical figure existed, but they don't all agree on how many of the acts and sayings attributed to him are authentic.

Answer 7

Most people will agree that other than the Bible, the only historian to mention him was Josephus. Not all scholars agree however whether or not his mention of Jesus was genuine or amended later. The story of Jesus came from somewhere. I think he was a real person and nothing more. It would've been much harder for Christianity to endure had Jesus not actually been real. That's my opinion.

Answer 8

it extremely is an argument of dialogue. there is extremely little modern-day evidence to point that Jesus - the son of god - replace right into a historic parent, what does exist is open to distinctive interpretations some historians asserting that's evidence others asserting this is no longer. curiously there is not any Roman, modern-day, records that time out that there replace right into a cult headed by employing him, or that they killed somebody by employing that call. I honestly have additionally study that Jesus replace right into a enormously person-friendly call interior the section at that factor too. on the different hand there are historic records, outdoors of the bible, that talk over with or honestly call Jesus. those incorporate Roman historians, between others. even although, none of them - so some distance as i'm conscious - are modern-day. As for Rob's answer: the extremely some books of the bible are attributed to the apostles, yet there is not any evidence that confirms they actually wrote them. So the argument that they have got been wrote by employing people who had observed a historic Jesus, is in fact fake. maximum are dated an prolonged time after the alleged loss of existence of Jesus, with some dated to around a hundred and fifty CE. to no longer point out that it replace into approximately 3 hundred years later whilst the bible as all of us comprehend replace into honestly extremely prepare. they do no longer seem to be a historic record, activities unfold in them no longer supported by employing the historians of the day, and that they do no longer instruct Jesus existed. To sum up: traditionally that's an argument of dialogue, to boot as a remember of religion. in case you suspect, you suspect. in case you do no longer, you do no longer. Edit: An Irish biblical student, Father Thomas L. Brodie, the former director of an institute called the Dominican Biblical Institute, printed a e book wherein he argued that Jesus is a mythical character. So even recent non secular varieties at the instant are not all in contract that Jesus replace right into a historic parent.

Answer 9

I have been told all kinds of tales. I haven't found any that shows scholars agree that the evidence points to the existance of an historical Jesus... They may believe he existed, but they offer no evidence outside of the Bible to support it. I believe that's where they are getting confused. There are many scholars who are Christian... but they're honest enough to admit that there's no evidence (which is why many rely on that fall-back - "I have Faith he was real"). =)

Answer 10

Spot on. There is no documentation of Jesus outside of the NT. There were many religious writers, philosphers, and other writers around the time of Jesus but Jesus doesn't appear in any of their works. There are writers who were in the same place as Jesus, at the same time yet they do not write a single word about a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people with a couple of loaves and fish, healed the sick and raised the dead.

I mean these are all pretty significant events. This man allegedly attracted huge crowds of listeners and yet nobody thought to write about it. Strange.

Answer 11

The reason is a Jewish Historian named Flavius Josephus who lived circa the time of Christ. He`d been a Jew, then a Roman citizen who believed in numerous Gods, so modern historians believe that he had no particular Axe to grind God wise. He mentions Christ several times in his narratives, one line of which reads " This man Christ, if it be lawful to call him a man ", referring to the amazing deeds that he`d heard was carried out by Christ. As a lot of ancient historians agree with Josephus on many other events which he recorded, modern historians tend to take his writings as an accurate source. A King of Turkey also sent his personal Portrait painter to capture a likeness of this man Christ of whom the King had heard so much and this is why we have an almost identical likeness in most of Christ`s representations today.