historical proof that jesus existed

[Doctor X]

Wanders out onto the battlements. . . .

The disciples did not write the NT texts. The "names" of the authors were assigned centuries later. We keep them for convenience.

Besides, one would think "witnesses" would not screw up birthdates by ten years or confuse a Judas who hangs himself with a Judas who spontaneously explodes!

They also would not screw up historical and geographical details.

This is understandable given the lateness of the texts--Mk being the earliest extant text dating no earlier than 70 CE--and the polemical nature of the texts. For one, the apostles are portrayed as fools. Much of the lesson is arguing against someone else.

There is no historical evidence of a historical Junior. Interestingly, Schweitzer rather came to this conclusion about a century ago.

However, that does not mean "some figure" did not exist. As one scholar quipped, "All you need for a founding figure is a name ad a place."

The problem is that we can say nothing about him. The individual scholars of the Jesus Seminar simply argue for the figure they like and pretend it is scientific.

However, however, one piece of evidence exists--and it is not the ossary stored on a toilet. . . .

Paul hated the Jerusalem Group. His Mein Kampf is Galatians in which he gives his version of his disagreement with them. He refers to James as "the brother of the Lord."

So . . . if Junior had a brother. . . .

That is not definitive because, as some scholars have argued, this is not a specific title. However, they do not explain why, in the legitimate Pauline letters, he does not refer to others in this way.

Still . . . if that is "proof" we are still left with absolutely nothing definitive as to what he said or did.

. . . retires to his wine.

--J.D.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

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.

Soderqvist1: Isn't eternal life in the heaven, or paradise advantageous?
There is no mentioning in the bible about Islam, because they are not contemporary, the time difference is 500 years! We can turn the question around and ask; why do people from various cultures from our history come up with different scriptures (non-compatible since all of them cannot be the inerrant word of god), if spiritual longings have merit when it comes to evidence? Josephus is born in Ad 37 and is not contemporary with Jesus! Jesus is myth just as Krishna, Shiva etc is in Hinduism the world's oldest religion! Old fairy tales or new ones like Harry Potter's movies are not authentic! Nor is the World of Conan Doyle; where Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson, and Professor Moriarty are talking about each other! You simply need independent humans from 1870 in the case of Holmes, and people from 0 – 30 AD correlated and consistent! But there is no such thing, therefore; god has not made us in his image, but we have made various gods in our imaginations, and thus Longings is no good alarm clock in our collective daydream!

 

[Iacchus]

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.

There is much to be gained on holding the molopoly on truth, whether it happens to be true or not. So in that sense you just can't take anybody's word for it. Of course if there is a God, and He's the one in control, then it's pretty much up to Him to reveal Himself to us in whatever way He deems fit. Meaning, He's calling the shots. Indeed, if He's the personal God He's claimed to be, why shouldn't we expect to find Him operating through human agency? ... meaning us. In which case I wouldn't dismiss such a notion entirely.

As for being able to ascertain whether there was a historical Jesus or not? Maybe that's not as important as having an open mind about God and being able to ascertain this for ourselves? Afterall, isn't this what Jesus preached, the kingdom of God? If so, then we should be able to approach this God by following His words shouldn't we? Which is, afterall, the ultimate test don't you think?

 

[triadboy]

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:

I don't buy the Josephus reference. Here are the reasons.

The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen's second-century version of Josephus, contained in Origen Contra Celsum where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of emperor Constantine, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity which was to become orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius said that it was permissible for Christians to tell lies if it furthered the kingdom of God. The fact that the Josephus-Jesus paragraph shows up at this time of history, at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common, makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars beheve that Eusebius was the forger.

The passage is out of context. In Book 18, which contains the paragraph about Jesus, Josephus starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies into the Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre.

Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews . . ." Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it.

Josephus would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." Whoever wrote these phrases was a Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

The phrase "to this day" shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

Josephus appears not to know anything else about Jesus outside of this tiny paragraph and a reference to James, the "brother of Jesus" (see below). He is silent about the miracles of Jesus, although he reports the antics of other prophets in great detail. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives, and says nothing that would not have been known by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century. In all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas ofGalilee, Theudas the magician, and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims is the answer to his messianic hopes.

The paragraph mentions that the life of Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, Josephus would have been the one learned enough to confirm it. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: " . . . as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him . . ." This sounds more like the stuff of sectarian propaganda.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. It turns around and bites them. If we remove the forged paragraph, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. If the life of Jesus was historical, why did Josephus know nothing of it?

There is one other passage in the Antiquities that mentions Jesus. It is in Book XX, Chapter 9:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put 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, (or some of his companions). And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned . . ." (Whiston's translation)

This is flimsy, and even Christian scholars widely consider this to be a doctored text. The stoning of James is not mentioned in Acts. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, in 170 AD wrote a history of the church saying that James the brother of Jesus was killed in a riot, not by sentence of a court, and Clement confirms this (quoted by Eusebius). Most scholars agree that Josephus is referring to another James here, possibly the same one that Paul mentions in Acts, who led a sect in Jerusalem. Instead of strengthening Christianity, this "brother of Jesus" interpolation contradicts history. Again, if Josephus truly thought Jesus was "the Christ," he would have added more about him than a casual aside in someone else's story.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/j_myth.htm#h2_2

When you see Bishop Eusebias is involved - take heed. (Isn't he also the first one to quote the added text in Mark?)

 

[triadboy]

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:

I don't buy it.

Sometime after 117 AD, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote in his Annals (Book 15, chapter 44): "Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

In this passage, Tacitus depicts early Christians as "hated for their crimes" and associated with "depravity and filth," not a flattering picture. But even if it is valid, it tells us nothing about Jesus of Nazareth. Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. He is merely repeating the then common ideas about Christians. (A modern parallel would be someone reporting that Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni, which would hardly make it historical proof, even though it is as close as a century away.) There is no other historical confirmation that Nero persecuted Christians. Nero did persecute Jews, and perhaps Tacitus was confused about this. There certainly was not a "great crowd" of Christians in Rome around 60 AD, and the term "Christian" was not in use in the first century. Tacitus is either doctoring history from a distance or repeating a myth without checking his facts. Historians generally agree that Nero did not burn Rome, so Tacitus is in error to suggest that he would have needed a scapegoat in the first place. No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus, and in fact it appears almost word-for-word in the writings of someone else, Sulpicius Severus, in the fourth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. The passage is therefore highly suspect and adds virtually no evidence for a historic Jesus.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/j_myth.htm

 

[ceo_esq]

I don't buy the Josephus reference. Here are the reasons.

I hate to point this out, but this is another source without expert credentials. Dan Barker apparently has just a bachelor's degree (in "Religion") and is not affiliated, as far as I can tell, with any university, research institution or professional historical association.

This wouldn't be so bad, actually (after all, a reasonably smart layman is at least capable of surveying the expert literature), if Barker's essay had loads of footnotes or other references to more established authorities. But it doesn't; it makes a lot of factual and interpretive assertions that we are encouraged to accept without authoritative support.

Also, although there is a decent-sized bibliography at the very end, it curiously omits the biggest names in the field of Josephus studies (like Louis Feldman or John Meier, or even older luminaries such as Thackeray). Plus, it looks as though the average age of the works on the bibliography is around 40 years - partly the result of being a bit overloaded with very early 20th-century works from when the "Jesus myth" thesis was briefly faddish. None of this inspires confidence that Barker's observations or conclusions are based on the best or most reliable research available.

 

[triadboy]

I hate to point this out, but this is another source without expert credentials.

Understood - but this site incapsulated the observations I've read elsewhere.

 

[ceo_esq]

Understood - but this site incapsulated the observations I've read elsewhere.

I'd still like to know where though, even if the source isn't online.

 

[JAR]

The disciples did not write the NT texts. The "names" of the authors were assigned centuries later. We keep them for convenience.

For at least Matthew and Mark I can say that that is not true. We have fragments from Papias writings contained in the writings of Eusebius. According to this page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm Papias' writings were written sometime between AD 115 and AD 140. In the sixth part of the fragments Papias says(from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

In there you can see that Papias speaks about both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark as being written by Matthew and Mark.

Besides, one would think "witnesses" would not screw up birthdates by ten years or confuse a Judas who hangs himself with a Judas who spontaneously explodes!

Being that it was Luke who said that Judas exploded, perhaps Luke was lying when he said he was a witness. Luke was not one of the original twelve disciples but Matthew was and it was Matthew that said Judas hung himself.

 

[JAR]

the term "Christian" was not in use in the first century.

The term "Christian" was in use in the first century.

Jesus' disciple Peter wrote in his first epistle, which was written in the early AD 60s,:

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

The earliest date that Acts is thought to be possibly written in is AD 61. In Acts 11:26 it says:

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

 

[triadboy]

For at least Matthew and Mark I can say that that is not true. We have fragments from Papias writings contained in the writings of Eusebius.

Nice use of the word "fragments".

What we have is Papias claiming Peter told Mark the Presbyter - which is ALL run through the Eusebius filter.

 

[Doctor X]

JAR:

In there you can see that Papias speaks about both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark as being written by Matthew and Mark.

Which in no way indicates they were. That Mt uses Mk as a source further undermines the categorization of either as a witness.

Being that it was Luke who said that Judas exploded, perhaps Luke was lying when he said he was a witness.

Save that Lk states he was not a witness. . . .

. . . but Matthew was and it was Matthew that said Judas hung himself.

The author of Mt was not a witness.

--J.D.

 

[triadboy]

Jesus' disciple Peter wrote in his first epistle, which was written in the early AD 60s,:

90-110 AD

The earliest date that Acts is thought to be possibly written in is AD 61.

80-130 AD

 

[JAR]

90-110 AD
80-130 AD

You're dates are speculations, and even if they were correct, they would not debunk my claim that the word "Christian" was in use in the first century AD. My argument still holds.

The claims you presented that Tacitus didn't refer to Christ and the Christians and that Josephus didn't refer to Jesus are all speculations.

 

[JAR]

Nice use of the word "fragments".

What we have is Papias claiming Peter told Mark the Presbyter - which is ALL run through the Eusebius filter.

You have no hard evidence that Papias didn't write those things.

 

[JAR]

Which in no way indicates they were. That Mt uses Mk as a source further undermines the categorization of either as a witness.

You still lack hard evidence that Matthew did not know Jesus.

Save that Lk states he was not a witness. . . .

This doesn't debunk Jesus' existence.

The author of Mt was not a witness.

The fact that Matthew didn't witness the death of Judas does not debunk the existence of Jesus.

 

[Doctor X]

JAR:

Sorry, but his dates are not speculations.

Whilst this may seem like I am waving about sufficient strawmen to constitute a major fire hazard, your objection is similar to this:

Newton: Einstein shows equivalency between mass and energy.

Moi: That is just speculation.

Now, to "prove" me wrong, Newton has to dump more than a year's worth of college physics on me. If he has better things to do . . . like have a life . . . he probably will not bother to which I start dancing, "you cannot show evidence! You cannot show evidence!"

Thus is it with Biblical Scholarship [Cue Thunderclap.--Ed.]

There are a number of great references to begin exploring issues such as the dates of authorship. I, and I am sure others, will be more than happy to provide them if you are interested. Otherwise, you are trying to fight against over 200 years of scholarship.

Note well that this is not Evil Atheist Scholarship [Tm.--Ed.]. Religious scholars have come to accept this--non-witness authorship of the texts, late dates for the texts, et cetera.

In that case, I would suggest you provide the evidence to support such early dates for the texts and the authorship. You may then submit it to the peer-reviewed literature.

Ah . . . I see you post as I post . . . let me edit in a reply:

You still lack hard evidence that Matthew did not know Jesus.

See above. References on the Synoptic problem available. That Mt refers to unhistorical events rather undercuts his veracity. That he alters the text of Mk further undercuts his veracity. That he denigrates the disciples--which you feel he is--further undercuts your speculation. Et cetera.

Moi:Save that Lk states he was not a witness. . . .

JAR: This doesn't debunk Jesus' existence.

On the contrary, my quote was not intended to debunk the existence of a historical Junior. It was to demonstrate your error in reading Lk-Acts.

Same with your further quote. I would suggest you address what a poster argues rather than what you think he argues.

--J.D.

[Edited to respond to post.--Ed.]

 

[JAR]

There are a number of great references to begin exploring issues such as the dates of authorship. I, and I am sure others, will be more than happy to provide them if you are interested. Otherwise, you are trying to fight against over 200 years of scholarship.

I'd be happy to see these references as long as they are mainstream references from trustworthy scholars.

Note well that this is not Evil Atheist Scholarship [Tm.--Ed.]. Religious scholars have come to accept this--non-witness authorship of the texts, late dates for the texts, et cetera.

Not all religious scholars have come to accept this.

In that case, I would suggest you provide the evidence to support such early dates for the texts and the authorship. You may then submit it to the peer-reviewed literature.

I got my dates from "The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary", "The NIV Study Bible", and off of the Catholic Encyclopedia off the internet. I'm not an expert, I just get my dates from the writings of other people who are experts. The stuff I saw written up above in the articles Triadboy posted about Josephus and Tacitus saying that they didn't actually mention Christians and Christ is stuff I have never seen written in a book by a prominent mainstream reliable scholar, so I assume that the stuff in the articles was speculations that didn't give me the whole story.

See above. References on the Synoptic problem available. That Mt refers to unhistorical events rather undercuts his veracity. That he alters the text of Mk further undercuts his veracity. That he denigrates the disciples--which you feel he is--further undercuts your speculation. Et cetera.

The fact that Matthew's Gospel is historically inaccurate, that he relied partly on Mark's Gospel for his own gospel, that he denigrates the disciples, does not prove that he didn't write the Gospel of Matthew.

 

[Doctor X]

JAR:

I'd be happy to see these references as long as they are mainstream references from trustworthy scholars.

They will be. Give me a day to troll the library--I am "at the office."

Not all religious scholars have come to accept this.

The non-apologetic actual scholars have.

I got my dates from "The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary", "The NIV Study Bible", and off of the Catholic Encyclopedia off the internet.

Eeeeee . . . not the best since they have a bias . . . understandable, of course.

I'm not an expert, I just get my dates from the writings of other people who are experts. The stuff I saw written up above in the articles Triadboy posted about Josephus and Tacitus saying that they didn't actually mention Christians and Christ is stuff I have never seen written in a book by a prominent mainstream reliable scholar, so I assume that the stuff in the articles was speculations that didn't give me the whole story.

Actually, they have been. One of them is in a reference I will give you--the Josephus and Tacitus specifically.

The problem is this stuff is a "mine-field" when you get started out. For example, walk in to most major book stores and try to find a credible scholarly work--you find Strobel all over the place. Why? Because it is "popular" just as Sylvia Brown's crap is "popular." Of course, the devestating refutation of Strobel is not popular.

The other problem is the lack of evidence. For example, return to my citation of Galatians above. Does that mean a historical James the Brother to Junior existed?

Well . . . who knows?! I think it is consistent and I think those who argue against it--"brother of the Lord" being a "generic" term --have not proven that. Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence proving one or the other.

In a way, the historical Junior is a separate issue from religion. Of course if NO ONE existed and it was all made up--well, that undercuts faith, but then does one need such to behave the way they do? Does one need historical certainty in order to be nice?

IF someone existed--the figure of the texts--which contradict one another--may have NO RELEVANCE to this historical figure--much like Shakespeare's Richard III to the real Richard III.

This is the strongest argument of the "mythicists" who argue that the figure of Junior is taken from other myths--they have a strong case, incidentally.

The fact that Matthew's Gospel is historically inaccurate, that he relied partly on Mark's Gospel for his own gospel, that he denigrates the disciples, does not prove that he didn't write the Gospel of Matthew.

Actually it rather does--if you want "Matthew" to be a historical direct witness.

Anyways, more later--I will construct a "list" off-line.

--J.D.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Soderqvist1: Isn't eternal life in the heaven, or paradise advantageous?
There is no mentioning in the bible about Islam, because they are not contemporary, the time difference is 500 years! We can turn the question around and ask; why do people from various cultures from our history come up with different scriptures (non-Scompatible since all of them cannot be the inerrant word of god), if spiritual longings have merit when it comes to evidence? Josephus is born in Ad 37 and is not contemporary with Jesus! Jesus is myth just as Krishna, Shiva etc is in Hinduism the world's oldest religion! Old fairy tales or new ones like Harry Potter's movies are not authentic! Nor is the World of Conan Doyle; where Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson, and Professor Moriarty are talking about each other! You simply need independent humans from 1870 in the case of Holmes, and people from 0 – 30 AD correlated and consistent! But there is no such thing, therefore; god has not made us in his image, but we have made various gods in our imaginations, and thus Longings is no good alarm clock in our collective daydream!

my original statement was

"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."

I was answering the question above first, turning it around is another.

The Koran says: (Islam)
and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths;

After reading a bit more from there it must be clerics opinions that Christ was a great teacher but not the Son of God as the Koran seems to say different to the point that I have read anyway. Actually there is quite a bit about Jews and Christians in the Koran. Once again, what the Bible says about Islam is another question, one cant go in too many directions at once.

To try to respond to the rest of your comments:

Mohammod was a person, Christ was a person. Just like Alexander the Great was a person.

myths and fairy tales and are stories based on imagination.

Krishna, Shiva are gods of which there are many. If you believe them thats another story but, they are gods.

Now you can go and lump all together but you are not being accurate and if your attempt is for constructive arguement or to present a case for thought it does not happen with lumping things.

As for Christ thats where its a little different. Christ was a person that did live long ago and if it was left at that I suspect there would not be much conversation over the years.

But then He also said He is God. Where Alexander the Great was a person and Shiva is a god, Christ said "I Am" Which separated Him from Shiva and Alexander. Being both a man and God. Thus all the conversation.

Once again lumping it all as a myth is not accurate and just does not work.

For Instance

What if I lumped science together with pseudo science? It seems to annoy most on this site when it happens. Its not accurate and I would not do that. I could say that a germ is crazy, look at my hands what on them could hurt anyone? nothing there! those scientists they just want research funds to mess around with myths. They dont know a thing.

Perhaps thats why people continue believing Uri Geller can bend spoons. The arguement for him not to is that they are not intelligent (woo woo is the term) Degrading or dismissing something to sound childish is not very critical or logical.