historical proof that jesus existed

[stamenflicker]

You'll be pleased to know that I agree that John Eward is not comparable to Jesus (yet?).

lol

Do you accept that, when writing historical documents, it is difficult for the author to achieve "true" objectivity?

Yes. I'd say its mostly impossible.

Do you think an author of an historical document is obliged to "try" and achieve objectivity?

I think to be considered as historical, sure.

Is it "likely" that the gospel writers had a "conclusion" regarding Jesus that they were keen to propagate?

I think it is possible to draw such a conclusion, but one has to assume first that relating their personal experiences was a secondary objective. I think we could accuse Paul of this more than the largely narrative passages of crucifixion, sermon on the mount, et. al. You argument is most valid in the early additions to the text, such as the birth narratives; and the later ones, including the resurrection.

Really, I guess I'm asking "why would the gospel writers tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Jesus"?

That's really the question I suppose. It rightfully can go either way, as it can for most any historical document, especially anyone wanting to ride the magic carpet of Josephus. Philo is an enigma to me and I have no good explanation as to his silence. I think it is human nature to see what you want to see, both in a person, and in a document-- hence, I typically don't spend too much time here. I tend to ask who is Jesus to me, and that will always take precendence over who he may or may not have been to those around him, those who came after him, or to most anyone else.

Aren't the chances very good that you'll get the two fanatical fans agreeing on some basic details, but having completely different interpretations of the event?

Yes. But no one is denying that a game hasn't been played at all, which is mostly what the argument boils down to for so many atheists as eluded to in the first thread.

Doesn't this demonstrate the problem here - that when *you* interpret the bible, there's every chance that you are interpreting the gospel authors own interpretation of Jesus?

Sure it does. But doesn't that same scrutiny apply to Josephus and other early writers? Josephus was known to hate revolutionaries and was supposed to be a devoute Jew. Not to mention he was employed by Roman coin. Why would we trust his report any more or less than over 5,000 scraps of the N.T.?

Finally, given the points made in previous posts (about lack of literacy in 33 AD, etc) shouldn't we conclude with some confidence that the gospel writers were, prior to writing the gospels, pretty damn commited to the cause - what else would drive then to spent the time and energy required?

Yes it does. And that passion and intensity push me toward accuracy, not away from it. Especially given the consequences of their commitment... i.e. death and persecution.

Flick

 

[Loki]

Flick,

But no one is denying that a game hasn't been played at all...

And neither do I - something definitely happen back then!

But doesn't that same scrutiny apply to Josephus and other early writers? Josephus was known to hate revolutionaries and was supposed to be a devoute Jew. Not to mention he was employed by Roman coin. Why would we trust his report any more or less than over 5,000 scraps of the N.T.?

But it's not a case of trusting one ore than the other - they are different beasts.

We have multiple levels of possible documentation :

Level 1 - Writings by the man in question. For Jesus, there are none (a rather large question mark in itself I would have thought, but perhaps a topic for another day)
Level 2 - Writings by others who claim personal knowledge. For Jesus, this is the gospels.
Level 3 - Writings by people who claim to have known someone who knew the man. For Jesus, there are none of these?
Level 4 - Writings by people who are reporting what they've been told. For Jesus, this would be Josephus.

And that passion and intensity push me toward accuracy, not away from it.

Well, this is probably the point at which our personal biases come into play. I find it far more likely that "passion and intensity" will lead to *more* filtering of the information, and a greater tendency to "fudge" the details in order to achieve a clearer conclusion. This seems, to me, to be a widespread human trait - I guess I just lack your faith that the gospel writers were able to rise above the "trap" that so many other historians fall into.

 

[Gregor]

counter point to ceo

As to the lack of documentation from ancients. . .

While I agree that we don't have reams of documents from 100 BCE to 100 CE, I think what we do have is interesting, and it is not inconsistent with similar historical periods. For example, of the 50+ noted philosophers from ancient Greece (400 BCE to 100 BCE) who wrote hundreds of books, we've got copies of what, 5? and that was thanks to the Arab scholars who kept them through the dark ages.

From Jesus' time we do have:

1. Ancient Jewish philosophical writings from 100 BCE like the book of Enoch, the 4 books of the Maccabees, and __(drawing a blank, here)__. This final book (the name escapes) pre-dated "Jesus" and contains many of the original sayings that found their way into the gospels (e.g. love your neighbor and your god). etc. It also had its own eschatology.

2. Ancient Jewish philosophical writings from post crucifixion like the dead sea scrolls. Several post-date Jesus' ministry but make no mention of him.

3. Ancient historical writings (Josephus, Philo) who make either no (Philo) or vague, if any (Joe) allusions to Jesus.

4. Paulian letters and the plagarized gospels, gospel of Thomas, other apocrypha.

I think these are more consistent with the conclusion that (i) the philosophy of redemption, brotherly love, and judgment pre-dated Jesus, (ii) Jesus was one of many minor evangelists at the time who did nothing out of the ordinary for the time, and (iii) inflation of his role by those acting 100+ years after his death.

 

[rikzilla]

please provide it for me. i am not being sarcastic, i just have never seen any evidence that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This may be a fun topic,..but don't kid yourself. What you are doing is intellectual masturbation.

There is no importance to this question. Whether Jesus existed or not is beside the point. What you are talking about here is religion. Religion is based on faith, not proof.

Therefore, whatever conclusion you guys may reach about the historical accuracy of Jesus will mean less than nothing. Did the Catholics remove the "Shroud of Turin" after it was scientifically proved a middle ages era fake? Nope...it is still enshrined. Their "faith" is stronger than science. The fossil record? Obviously placed there by Satan to ensnare the unbelievers!

Give it up guys....faith is immune to even the most solid of evidence. And evidence for (or against) the historical reality of Jesus is pretty flimsy stuff.

-zilla

 

[Mike B.]

I have read a huge amount on this since I went on this forum. A few points:

I am sorry to say I have yet to find a major secular historian to push for the theory that there was no historical Jesus. The books that say this are put out by Humanist Presses often.

There are a number of non-xian historians of the period that have written on the historical Jesus. Paula Fredrickson's book: "Jesus of Nazarteth: King of the Jews" is to me one of the best recreations of the material.

Without getting into Josephus or Tacitus,(I think under normal historical circumstances for anyone else, his entry would be prime facie evidence for a historical person.) I think there is enough in the genuine Pauline letters to let me conclude there is a historical Jesus.
(Gal 4:4 - God sent his son: Born of a woman, born under the law)
(I Cor. 9:14 - Just as the Lord preached those who preach by the Gospel should live by it.)

Among others...

Also in Paul he speaks of going to meet James, the Lord's brother and Cephas (Peter). It would be odd if there was no historical Jesus and he was on a level of Sherlock Holmes that his Watson (Peter) would be real and his brother Mycroft (James) is real...

And plus Paul supposedly converted 3 years or so after the death of Christ. His genuine letters are not 100s of years later, but within a 20 years or so.

And I would point out that the objection that the gospels were written 40-70 years after Jesus's death pales because the first biography we have of Alexander the Great comes 300 years later...It is just the way it goes with antiquity.

Of course believing in a historical Jesus is not the same as being an Xian...

 

[triadboy]

I'm not religious, but I have to say that we do have historical evidence of Jesus. It's contained in four books called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. People exit prehistory when they are first written about. After that, they are referred to as historical. To say we have no historical evidence of Jesus is to say no-one has written about him.

Using that reasoning, we have historical evidence of Mithra, but he is not an historical figure. He is a mythological figure.

Which, again is what all my research leads me to - Jesus is a mythological figure overlayed onto an insignificant sage.

The virgin birth, water to wine, reviving the dead, resurrecting, etc. are all standard mythological fare. Celsus used to ridicule Christians because they stole their story from the standard mythologies present at that time - BUT THEN BELIEVED THEM TO BE TRUE!

I believe only Luke refers to the Sermon on the Mount. If this was such a keystone of the Christian faith, why did Matthew/Mark/John forget to mention it?

I believe the truest representation we have of the sage "Jesus" is the Gospel of Thomas. A list of sayings without the drama. Yes, it is a Gnostic text, but I believe Christianity rose out of the Gnosticism that Paul created.

 

[JAR]

historical proof that jesus existed

please provide it for me. i am not being sarcastic, i just have never seen any evidence that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It amazes me that people would question the existence of Jesus when we have writings mentioning him written by people who knew him.

Jesus' disciples Matthew and John both wrote a biography about him. His disciple Peter started his epistle, 1 Peter, with "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ", and started 2 Peter with "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ."

 

[Pixel42]

A few years ago my newspaper (the UK Guardian) reported a poll which showed that 40% of the British people believe that Sherlock Holmes was an historical figure. This is less than a century after his creator's death, and in a society where almost everyone can read, and can go into any public library and find a book of stories about him in the fiction section with "By Arthur Conan Doyle" clearly printed on it.

Make of that what you will.

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: historical proof that jesus existed

It amazes me that people would question the existence of Jesus when we have writings mentioning him written by people who knew him.

Jesus' disciples Matthew and John both wrote a biography about him. His disciple Peter started his epistle, 1 Peter, with "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ", and started 2 Peter with "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ."

round and round we go.... Matthew and John? Did they exist? or where they just arbitrary names attached to various gospels? Was Matthew actually written by a guy called matthew? who knows...... You basically cannot find a person, who's existence is fact, who can say "I met Jesus"..not one...nil...nada...zipporoonie.

 

[Pixel42]

It's just occurred to me that Sherlock Holmes meets JAR's criterion for proof of historical existence, since all the books about him are written in the first person by someone who knew him well - his good friend Dr. Watson.

 

[JAR]

Re: Re: Re: historical proof that jesus existed

round and round we go.... Matthew and John? Did they exist? or where they just arbitrary names attached to various gospels? Was Matthew actually written by a guy called matthew? who knows...... You basically cannot find a person, who's existence is fact, who can say "I met Jesus"..not one...nil...nada...zipporoonie.

John certainly did exist. Paul actually met him. In Paul's epistle to the Galatians, Paul said in 2:9, "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me."

 

[Kitty Chan]

Just a question, no one seems to have brought up that is was not advantageous for any of Jesus followers to proclaim a faith in Him.

You could say the doomsdays cults follow their leaders but they generally stay together and dont go out to the "world" because their followers thinking could be changed.

Not so with Christs followers, they are not confined to stay with their "own". (with some obvious exceptions ie Hutterites, Amish)

So, other than a sensational answer why would so many stay so long if there wasnt at least a person of Christ? It would have fallen apart years ago.

And also if Ive read what everyone said correctly people are looking for outside the Bible mention of Christ. Religions like Islam seem to mention Him as a great teacher for one.

 

[jaderook01]

Shroud of Akron,

From an apologetics point of view, the best I've seen is in a book by Lee Strobel called The Case For Christ.

 

[triadboy]

You could say the doomsdays cults follow their leaders but they generally stay together and dont go out to the "world" because their followers thinking could be changed.
Not so with Christs followers, they are not confined to stay with their "own". (with some obvious exceptions ie Hutterites, Amish)

So, other than a sensational answer why would so many stay so long if there wasnt at least a person of Christ? It would have fallen apart years ago.

Human nature. People want to believe.

And also if Ive read what everyone said correctly people are looking for outside the Bible mention of Christ. Religions like Islam seem to mention Him as a great teacher for one.

We don't have a solid, non-biblical, contemporary reference to him. (The Book of Mormon mentions him too.)

One would think one of the historians - writing at that time - in that area - would have written something about a sage causing such a commotion.

 

[JAR]

We don't have a solid, non-biblical, contemporary reference to him. (The Book of Mormon mentions him too.)

One would think one of the historians - writing at that time - in that area - would have written something about a sage causing such a commotion.

There is no law of science that says non-Christians contemporary with Jesus would mention Jesus if he existed. You're argument has indirect evidence that he didn't exist, but no hard indirect evidence. You're argument for Jesus' non-existence is speculation.

 

[triadboy]

You could say the doomsdays cults follow their leaders but they generally stay together and dont go out to the "world" because their followers thinking could be changed.

Not so with Christs followers, they are not confined to stay with their "own". (with some obvious exceptions ie Hutterites, Amish)

If Jesus was living now and had followers, they may act the same way as any other doomsday cult. But to answer your question - Xians are supposed to evangelize - so they must go out into the world. It is their 'job' to convert heathens - just ask the Aztecs.

So, other than a sensational answer why would so many stay so long if there wasnt at least a person of Christ? It would have fallen apart years ago.

Plato mentioned a place called Atlantis. There are people living today who believe it existed.

 

[triadboy]

There is no law of science that says non-Christians contemporary with Jesus would mention Jesus if he existed. You're argument has indirect evidence that he didn't exist, but no hard indirect evidence. You're argument for Jesus' non-existence is speculation.

However, the web of lies is an indicator that the story is very suspect. For instance, take the Slaughter of the Innocents - this is standard mythological fare. It 'happened' to Moses. It even happened to my relatives - but that is another story.

Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

This is a lie. Herod did not do this. Why? Because there is not a non-biblical reference to this event. One would think someone would have written about all children two and under being killed. Josephus - who hated Herod and mentioned every evil thing he ever did - knows nothing of this story.

So here we have an event - mentioned in the Bible - not mentioned anywhere else - that is a lie.

Now we have Jesus - raising the dead, walking on water, feeding multitudes, changing water to wine, creating havoc wherever he went - and no one mentions this?!

I think the mythology contained in his story, came to be believed as history...but it isn't.

 

[JAR]

However, the web of lies is an indicator that the story is very suspect. For instance, take the Slaughter of the Innocents - this is standard mythological fare. It 'happened' to Moses. It even happened to my relatives - but that is another story.



This is a lie. Herod did not do this. Why? Because there is not a non-biblical reference to this event. One would think someone would have written about all children two and under being killed. Josephus - who hated Herod and mentioned every evil thing he ever did - knows nothing of this story.

So here we have an event - mentioned in the Bible - not mentioned anywhere else - that is a lie.

Now we have Jesus - raising the dead, walking on water, feeding multitudes, changing water to wine, creating havoc wherever he went - and no one mentions this?!

I think the mythology contained in his story, came to be believed as history...but it isn't.

I don't doubt that the miracles and the slaughter of innocents didn't occur, but that Jesus didn't exist, that I do doubt. Once again I tell you that there is no scientific law that says a lack of mentions of Christ by contemporary non-Christians indicates that Christ did not exist.

The evidence for Christ's existence is overwhelming. We have two biographies about him by two of his disciples, we have a biography about him by Mark who knew his disciple Peter, we have the letter to the Galatians by Paul mentioning more than once meetings between Paul and one or more of Christ's disciples, we have a letter called "James" and the most likely candidate for authorship is considered to be James the brother of Jesus, we have two letters by his disciple Peter, three letters by his disciple John, and a book of prophecy called "Revelations" by the same disciple John, so it is very obvious Jesus existed.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Human nature. People want to believe.



We don't have a solid, non-biblical, contemporary reference to him. (The Book of Mormon mentions him too.)

One would think one of the historians - writing at that time - in that area - would have written something about a sage causing such a commotion.

the question was, no one seems to have brought up that is was not advantageous for any of Jesus followers to proclaim a faith in Him.

Your response to the afterthought of cults that people wanting to believe does not quite work with this question. However, a question for you to consider or others is Why do people want to believe, or search or however you want to call it.

I mentioned Islam because its older than Joesph Smiths writings and from the same side of the world.

I believe if you check earlier in this thread someone mentioned other non biblical types, you can check it out.

 

[JAR]

We don't have a solid, non-biblical, contemporary reference to him. (The Book of Mormon mentions him too.)

One would think one of the historians - writing at that time - in that area - would have written something about a sage causing such a commotion.

There are solid, non-biblical, contemporary references to Christ.

Josephus wrote a book which appeared either in AD 93 or AD 94 called "The Jewish Antiquities", and in 18.3.63-64 it says:

(63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

In 20.9.200 it mentions both Jesus and his brother James:

(200) when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity to exercise his authority. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

Tacitus, who died either in AD 116 or after that date, wrote a series of books called "Annals", and in 15.44, it says concerning the fire that swept Rome in AD 64 during the reign of Nero:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero offered his garderns for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.