-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.

10
  • Obviously even if the answer is no this does not demonstrate that the historical Jesus did not exist. Commented Aug 18, 2023 at 1:04
  • 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
    Commented Aug 18, 2023 at 1:23
  • 1
    How are you distinguishing between historical events and the biblical record? There is more documentary evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar. Commented Aug 18, 2023 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. Commented Aug 19, 2023 at 4:28
  • It might help if you defined what you mean by "historical necessity". Do you not rather mean "theologically necessary"? Commented Aug 20, 2023 at 15:26

1 Answer 1

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.

5
  • "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? Commented Aug 18, 2023 at 4:41
  • @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 christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96690.
    – Matthew
    Commented Aug 18, 2023 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
    Commented Aug 19, 2023 at 4:18
  • I don't have enough reputation to use the chat. Commented Aug 19, 2023 at 4:31
  • My comments here were deleted. Commented Aug 26, 2023 at 16:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .