We know there was a King Tut because we have his remains, along with tons (literally) of written descriptions of his life, made during his life. But do we have that sort of archeological evidence that a person named Jesus Christ ever existed?
If I am recollecting this right, Jesus was born in Nazareth because Joseph and Mary had had to travel there to be counted for some sort of Roman census. Did any document of that census survive the mists of time? I know about the Shroud of Turin -- anyone here convinced that it serves as scientific/historical evidence that Jesus really existed?
If there is no physical proof that he existed, is it possible to say that the books of the Bible, written so long after his death is said to have happened and with so little agreement amongst them, establishes the fact of his existence as a matter of science?
From what I can gather, there is not much doubt that Buddha existed, or that Joseph Smith did. I just wondered, do we have that level of certainty that a historical figure named Jesus Christ ever existed?
And before you ask, this is not in the Religion Forum because I am not looking to debate the matter with folks who "accept Jesus". Any religious person should be able to tell you that faith and scientific proof are not the same thing.
I hope you aren't silly enough to believe that only the most important things survived intact down through history here. King Tut was a minor and unimportant king while the tombs of some of the most important Kings of Egypt have been totally lost to history. Same is true of the historical documents that survived through the centuries from the Roman Empire -the surviving records of the Roman Empire are actually incredibly sparse and not well documented at all given the scope and depth of power it had. And that isn't even touching on the fact that there have been times when "cleansing" the historical record of particular kings and other people were made. So hoping to find evidence regarding a single person in an outlying Roman conquered territory who was not a member of the Roman government, a conqueror or warrior and the like and considered to be little more than a common criminal at the time - already lowers the odds exponentially. So where can you best look for that evidence? You use whatever you can find and among the first would be Jewish records because Jews kept meticulous records through history and have NEVER included a mythological person who never existed at all. Even while deeming Jesus to not have fulfilled prophecy as the Messiah, their records do acknowledge the existence of Jesus.
Historical Jesus
This article makes an interesting point about those whose usually unspoken goal is to try and separate the historical Jesus from the "myth". But as this article points out, such people are driven by the 20th century philosophy of naturalism which holds anything outside the realm of natural explanation can never be backed by historical evidence. Which means such people already approach the search for the historical Jesus with an agenda to try and disprove the "myth" part even while being forced to acknowledge Jesus' existence.
The Shroud of Turin is the myth here, not Jesus and every effort to date that cloth shows it was made long after the crucifixion of Jesus. No Christian church that I know of claims that cloth shows the image of Jesus on it and it is the possession of the Catholic Church which also says it does not believe it is the image of Jesus. Did you even bother to Google that one? The actual chronology of Jesus birth is still being debated among biblical scholars so no one's opinion here is going to change that debate -and I would only point out those debating that all agree that Jesus really did exist and is not a "mythological" character like Pegasus.
This particular article goes into some of the supporting evidence in the historical record and archeological record that exists for the descriptions, timing and locations of events detailed in the Gospels and I'm not going to repeat it all here. But that evidence does include outside historical records confirming the existence and events for some of His apostles which also helped determine when the different books in the New Testament were written and confirms when they died which then confirms when still others of the Gospels were and were not written. The apostles were the very people who claimed to have known and interacted with Jesus personally, the people who wrote the Gospels in the first place and we know that there are historical records that support the time line of certain events that happened to some of these Apostles -just as they wrote about.
As this article points out the "historical Jesus" crowd believe the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus were all written in the late 1st or early 2nd century and even after that have been repeatedly re-written, manipulated and exaggerated over time to evolve into what they see as the current "myth". But this is not supported by the historical evidence. It is a matter of historical record when the first person accounts of the life of Jesus and letters written by the apostles were gathered (early 1st century) -which then became most of the books of the Gospels of the New Testament. Outside historical records also confirm many of the events that were detailed in the first person by the authors of the Gospels after the crucifixion of Jesus. And most importantly it correctly points out the basic Christian doctrine developed far too quickly for a myth to intervene and distort the historical record. By the late 1st century and early 2nd century, Christian doctrine was already firmly established, the tenets of which remain unchanged from the time the apostles wrote their letters and first person accounts and the divinity of Jesus was part of that from the beginning while the apostles still walked the earth spreading His message -and nearly all those first hand accounts of the apostles were written AND already officially collected together 30-50 years after the crucifixion. By the early 2nd century the conversion of the Roman Empire (which also included much of Europe) was already underway.
The search for the "historical Jesus" is an effort by those who are forced to accept reality that He really did exist and isn't just a figment of someone's imagination who managed to deceive billions throughout history with the most egregious and longest lasting hoax that was all about a non-existent person. Even the most stubborn atheist must acknowledge it would be beyond stupid to believe the leading religion in the world is based on an imaginary, non-existent person but still one who had such an amazing message that struck just the right chord with billions in the world throughout history to this day. LOL So they have moved on to Stage Two of the attack on Christianity with an effort to somehow "prove" He was in reality nothing more than a "good man". Yeah, right. As if the world has never known a good man before or since -which should tell you there must be something more than that involved here to differentiate Jesus from all other men. And it isn't as if we haven't seen hoards of people claiming to have that same kind of status that Jesus has -none of it ever "took" with any of those phonies though, did it?
