Why is it not valid to question the historicity of Jesus?

Question

I asked a question earlier today regarding why historians tend to agree on the existence of a historical Jesus, and received several answers suggesting I'm a crazed fundamentalist lunatic for even considering the possibility that a story that sounds like a work of fiction derived from OT exegesis, might actually be a work of fiction derived from OT exegesis.

The evidence of a historical Jesus is simply not overwhelming, and a lot of puzzles are greatly simplified without such an assumption, so why is it not valid to question it?

...a conspiracy would not have had him crucified, but exegesis of Isaiah 53 within the context of a Jewish war where crucifixion was common would have. Why bother replying if you don't know what you're talking about?

I don't claim Alexander the Great existed. I don't care about that and it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Are arguments from consequences really the best people have to offer on this?

Answer 1

It IS valid to question the historicity of Jesus.

I agree with you, the evidence is simply not overwhelming, and some individuals assume that because Jesus is in the Bible that is an historical fact. Others claim that Jesus "can be found in many other historical documents" but they always fail to list, or provide, such documents. As students of History, we do not have accept the existence of Jesus from merely the Bible alone - and it is our perogative to point this out to the many people who ask questions about Jesus here in the History category.

For those that claim there was a person named Jesus - please provide the names of the historians who agree on the his existence and NOT quotes from the Bible.

Answer 2

In any discipline or field of study, the students should accept the degree of certainty that the study itself offers. History isn't mathematics or physics. We accept, for example, the existance of Apollonius of Tyana, even though there is less evidence for his existance than that of Jesus. I think that people who deny his historicity are as much exceptionalists as crazed fundamentalists. Your assumption that I said you are a crazed fundamentalist says little for your powers of thought. If I say your nose is red like a tomato, it doesn't mean you are a tomato, does it?
I think those danying the historicity of Jesus are a bit like the conspiracy theorists. They get a kick out of thinking that they know the truth and can see through an elaborate cover-up. In point of fact, there being no historical Jesus would cause more problems than it solves. Why, for instance would a conspiracy have had him crucified? It was very inconvenient for converting Jews and Greeks alike('Cursed be he that hangeth on a tree' and the greater loving more than the lesser respectively).
It is far more likely that the man existed and then subsequently his followers found prophecies and took them, sometimes out of context, and sometimes, as it would seem, twisted both the facts and the prophecies to 'prove' they were about him, than that they had the 'adapted' version of the prophecies and invented this character to justify them. Your basic argument seems to put the cart before the horse.
A seasonal example: the prophecy in Micah states that the Messiah, like David, will be born in Bethlehem. A fictional Jesus would just be born in Bethlehem and lived there, wouldn't he? But the Gospel writers had to contend with the fact that Jesus' early life was in Nazareth. Hence the appearance of the not entirely convincing story of the return to Bethlehem for tax registration.

Answer 3

It's a valid question to ask if Jesus really existed, but you seem to be predisposed to a certain answer. Jesus was mentioned in several contemporary works.... maybe not as many as the son of God should be in (that's another issue), but enough to make it reasonable to assume he existed. We have the Gospel of Mark, written only some 30 years after Jesus' death. We have evidence that the emperor Nero had heard of him. There are many other written sources. Perhaps most importantly, though, we see a sudden appearance of Christians at the same time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. That should be enough evidence.

Answer 4

People have been spoon-fed a certain amount of information their whole life and questioning that information can be scary and it makes people a little antsy.

Questioning Jesus also may bring Catholics to a very close breaking point. People find confront in their religion and by questioning a savior of theres, it causes problems.

You had the right to ask, but sometimes people won't give you the answers your looking for.


(I'm Catholic, I'm not against Jesus, I'm just stating facts guys)

Answer 5

Jesus was an actual person, weather you believe he was the son of God or not. He is mentioned in many diffrent historical documents that are not considered religious. It isnt like Jesus is just in the bible. Historians agree that Jesus did in fact exist, because the evidence is there. maybe not overwhelming, but neither is the evidence that I exist either, and yet I do.

Answer 6

Well, there's two things going on here. First--if you express any doubts about the reality of Jesus as a real person, the religious right (fundamentalists) are going to squawk.

As for historians (I am one), sorry, but the evidence is pretty conclusive. There are simply too many references from too many sources to doubt that Hesus was real. And--keep in mind that this is one of the most throughly researched topics in ancient history--probably far more thanany other.

Answer 7

if you don't believe Jesus is a real person then how can you believe alexander the great was or anyone from history. It is not valid to question it because there is written (and trustworthy) proof that he did exist. The touchy part is believing everything that is written about him eg resurrection but that doesn't call into question his actual existence.

Answer 8

Your puzzles may be simplified by such an assumption, but many people cannot accept that such puzzles have any validity whatsoever, and cannot therefore abide questions that make clear that such puzzles have validity. They lash out to prevent others from raising similar questions.

Answer 9

jesus was clearly recorded in a number of historical books excluding the gospels of luke matthew john and the acts of the apostles. listen you have to get facts right. we have records stating that the roman viceroy or govenor of judea was at the time of christ, puncheous pilate sentanced a jew to death jesus. for speaking against god(claimed by the sanhedrin). also roman law was very strict about keeping the streets clean without fighting or arguing. Jesus was causing this. pilate originally didnt want to cruscify him so he gave the people a chance barnabas or jesus. they picked jesus, over a brutal killer. also do you really think the biggest religion would be based on a myth. (why is roman and greek mythology not still here?) people want facts to be based on. thats why people were so passionate about there religion during roman persecutions. Jesus was real. his divinity and humanity has been questioned over years though.

Answer 10

you can question it, but a lot of people will get really pissed off if you do(I get a little uncomfortable thinking about it). But those people are insecure with their faith and want to block out anything that questions it. Listen, any Christians out there, if you are continuously blocking out subjects like the validity of the Bible, how strong can your faith really be?