-2

Are there any historical events that cannot be explained without a historical Jesus?

If you cite the Bible, please indicate why you think the passage is part of history.

Update: this question is closed for being "opinion-based". I am looking for historical accounts.

user1010110
  • 65
  • 6
  • Obviously even if the answer is no this does not demonstrate that the historical Jesus did not exist. – user1010110 Aug 18 '23 at 01:04
  • 3
    I don't think this is on-topic in its current form. Please see What types of questions can I ask on this site? – curiousdannii Aug 18 '23 at 01:23
  • 1
    How are you distinguishing between historical events and the biblical record? There is more documentary evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar. – Mike Borden Aug 18 '23 at 12:20
  • Historical events are ones that are considered by experts to be what most likely happened in the past. The biblical record is what is recorded in the Bible. – user1010110 Aug 19 '23 at 04:28
  • It might help if you defined what you mean by "historical necessity". Do you not rather mean "theologically necessary"? – Andrew Shanks Aug 20 '23 at 15:26
  • A historical Jesus is necessary to the Christian faith according to the Apostle Paul: "If Christ is not risen your faith is vain and you are still in your sins", 1 Corinthians 15:17. – Andrew Shanks Aug 20 '23 at 15:45
  • @AndrewShanks This is a question about history, not theology. Some Christians believe that parts of the Bible are allegorical, and thus not are not a part of history. I am not aware of any historical events that necessitate Jesus, which is what the question is asking about. – user1010110 Aug 20 '23 at 19:31
  • In my opinion this is a really good question but it needs to be reworded so it asks for evidence that Jesus actually existed. If that were the question then it deserves to be answered properly. It reduces to the question "Do the Scriptures have integrity?" or "Does the New Testament bear the hall malks of truthfulness?" and additionally "Are Christians honest, deceivers, or self-deceived?" If you can afford the time and money then read "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - The Gospels as eye-witness testimony" by Prof Richard Bauckham, and "The Case for Jesus - the biblical and historical.. – Andrew Shanks Aug 22 '23 at 09:39
  • historical evidence for Christ" (2016) by Brant Pitre. Brant grew up in the Roman Catholic church, then his faith was shaken while studying under Bart Ehrman, but he then went on to unpick Ehrman's ideas, to weigh them in the balance, and found them to be light-weight and wanting. And if a die-hard Protestant can say its a great book then it must be. – Andrew Shanks Aug 22 '23 at 10:10
  • To get a good summary of the ideas watch "Peter Williams, New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts 03/05/2011" on Youtube, an hour and 2 minutes. – Andrew Shanks Aug 22 '23 at 10:25

1 Answers1

1

Almost overnight, the followers of a virtual nobody changed from dejected, cowering virtual nobodies whose leader had just been brutally executed into evangelists boldly facing persecution and death to spawn what is arguably the most significant religion in history.

Contemporary historians strongly point to the involvement of an individual known as "[the Christ]" who aligns on multiple key points with the Jesus of Scripture.

The existence and rapid rise of the Christian religion certainly qualify as historical events, and ones which demand an explanation. Is the existence of "Jesus" absolutely necessary as part of that explanation? Perhaps not... but the available evidence (Scriptural and otherwise) strongly points to that as the most rational explanation.

The Question is akin to asking whether there are any events that cannot be explained without a historical Alexander. Someone devoted to conspiracy theories could probably make a case that no such man existed... but believing in such conjectures be similarly irrational.

Matthew
  • 7,998
  • 15
  • 40
  • "Is the existence of "Jesus" absolutely necessary as part of that explanation? Perhaps not... but the available evidence (Scriptural and otherwise) strongly points to that as the most rational explanation." Why? – user1010110 Aug 18 '23 at 04:41
  • @user1010110, for the same reasons we believe in the existence of any other historical figure; Occam's Razor. See also most of the content at https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96690. – Matthew Aug 18 '23 at 16:55
  • @user1010110, it's true, Jesus is unique in being known more for what happened after He died, but in terms of why we believe that a "Jesus" existed... we believe because we have a number of written records attesting to that. That is no different than many other historical figures, especially ones from about the same time period or earlier. I am going to remind you, however, that comments are not for discussion. If you wish to continue discussing, take it to chat. – Matthew Aug 19 '23 at 04:18
  • I don't have enough reputation to use the chat. – user1010110 Aug 19 '23 at 04:31
  • My comments here were deleted. – user1010110 Aug 26 '23 at 16:12