Historical evidence of Jesus

[penguinchicky]

Hey,

Not sure if this is the right forum section to ask but here is the question anyway.

My Aunt who is very anti-Catholic and a “sharman” says there is no historical evidence what so ever for Jesus.

Can someone please send me some links or provide some information to prove to her Jesus was a living breathing person.

I have told her that I have every right to believe what I want but I have the feeling that she thinks I’ve been mine controlled by the church!

Thanks

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

I’m not sure of any links but I think some people on here could point you in the right direction.

I believe most historians (except a very few) agree that Jesus was a real person. There is history to support that.

Although many people do dispute whether or not all of the things we hear about him in the Gospels are true.

I hope you find the information you’re looking for.

God bless

 

[penguinchicky]

I’m not sure of any links but I think some people on here could point you in the right direction.

I believe most historians (except a very few) agree that Jesus was a real person. There is history to support that.

Although many people do dispute whether or not all of the things we hear about him in the Gospels are true.

I hope you find the information you’re looking for.

God bless

Thank you.

Unfortunately my Aunt is the type of person who will read conspiracy theories and believe they are true because they confirm her world view. Because she is very anti Christian and Catholic Church anyone who is on the fringe she will believe instead of “historians”.

Though digging into her deeper she does not believe anything “historians” say is true anyway which is hard for me as I have a BA in History so I guess everything I learned at university was false and a lie.

 

[Cachonga]

Check out this site - religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
This is from the works of Josephus, who was a witness to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and (as far as we know) was never a Christian. I would tend to use the 2nd translation from the Arabic version. Either way, this gives clear evidence that Jesus was known to have existed.

I would be curious to know how your Aunt thinks Christianity came about it there were no such person as Jesus?

 

[penguinchicky]

Check out this site - religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
This is from the works of Josephus, who was a witness to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and (as far as we know) was never a Christian. I would tend to use the 2nd translation from the Arabic version. Either way, this gives clear evidence that Jesus was known to have existed.

I would be curious to know how your Aunt thinks Christianity came about it there were no such person as Jesus?

Thank you for that link … I’ll have a look at it in a minute.

She thinks Christianity is a myth or story tale. Have you seen that zeitgeist movie … (I’ve only heard what she has told me as I refuse to watch it) it talks about the Jesus myth being similar to other pagan / eqyptian / geek / roman gods of a similar time. She also thinks Christianity was not formed until Constantine who put together the bible. But what gets me the most is that she says she looks at all the evidence then makes up her mind and I don’t. Yet she will not look at any of my evidence because it was written by historians who will only carry the status quo.

She then talks about all the other books that are not included and are hidden … I tried to point out that a Jewish professor I had at University had them in his office but she would not listen. She also thinks that the Vatican has a hidden library where only certian people can go … tried to tell her this was not true but again she would not listen.

 

[penguinchicky]

I should also add she says he was made up because no wrote about him at the time he was alive means they made him up after the fact.

 

[saieditor]

Hey,

Not sure if this is the right forum section to ask but here is the question anyway.

My Aunt who is very anti-Catholic and a “sharman” says there is no historical evidence what so ever for Jesus.

Can someone please send me some links or provide some information to prove to her Jesus was a living breathing person.

I have told her that I have every right to believe what I want but I have the feeling that she thinks I’ve been mine controlled by the church!

Thanks

Who are you living for?

Your aunt/shaman?

Yourself?

Or for Christ?

Your aunt is going to listen to nothing. Why bother? Your aunt is a responsible adult, and she is responsible for her own faith choices, or lack thereof. You are not responsible for her faith, or lack thereof, in Christ Jesus. Your own faith is what is important, not hers.

 

[Cachonga]

Just a quick note - Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived during the time the New Testament scriptures were being written (he was an eye-witness of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD). As far as textual evidence, there are manuscripts of New Testament writings dating back to the first and second century, and these come from a wide geographical area (Judea, Greece, North Africa, Rome, etc…). Furthermore, these have been found written in different languages (Greek, Arabic, Latin, etc…). It is known among ancient manuscript scholars that there is greater evidence of the authenticity for the New Testament writings than there is for any other work of antiquity (such as Homer’s Iliad, or anything written by Plato or Socrates, etc…).

Some of the other works that she points to were written by Gnostics (they deny that Jesus came in the flesh, which gave rise to the myth of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, and even John addressed this heresay (see 1 John 4:3)), or other heretics. These were denied canonical status because they could not be proven to have been written by their supposed authors, and contain (in some cases) obvious heresies (for example, the Protevangelium of James was supposedly written by the Apostle James, but the earliest work comes from the middle of the second century). Hope this helps!

 

[Cachonga]

saieditor:

Who are you living for?

Your aunt/shaman?

Yourself?

Or for Christ?

Your aunt is going to listen to nothing. Why bother? Your aunt is a responsible adult, and she is responsible for her own faith choices, or lack thereof. You are not responsible for her faith, or lack thereof, in Christ Jesus. Your own faith is what is important, not hers.

1 Cor 3:5-8 says, “Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.” What is wrong with trying to share the love of God with someone? Even if you don’t think they hear, do you have the right to withhold the Gospel message from someone? Her Aunt may not hear what’s being said now, but a seed has been planted, and may be watered later, and she may see the fruit of her Aunt’s salvation at a much later time (maybe not until that day we all stand before Jesus, but who can say?).

 

[Leela]

Hey,

Not sure if this is the right forum section to ask but here is the question anyway.

My Aunt who is very anti-Catholic and a “sharman” says there is no historical evidence what so ever for Jesus.

Can someone please send me some links or provide some information to prove to her Jesus was a living breathing person.

I have told her that I have every right to believe what I want but I have the feeling that she thinks I’ve been mine controlled by the church!

Thanks

Here is an interesting debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Erhman on the historical evidence for the resurrection:

holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm

 

[penguinchicky]

Who are you living for?

Your aunt/shaman?

Yourself?

Or for Christ?

Your aunt is going to listen to nothing. Why bother? Your aunt is a responsible adult, and she is responsible for her own faith choices, or lack thereof. You are not responsible for her faith, or lack thereof, in Christ Jesus. Your own faith is what is important, not hers.

Thank you and I agree 100% … I believe everyone has the right to believe what they want. I just don’t like that whatever I believe is wrong … yet I think she can be a sharman / pagan all she likes.

In the past we have agreed to disagree but today she refused to back down and says what she believes is the truth …!?!

 

[Fergal]

Flavius Josephus Jewish historian, born AD 37, at Jerusalem; died about 101 wrote about Christ from a non-religious view point.

The story of Herod the Great is contained in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words:

About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

 

[penguinchicky]

Just a quick note - Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived during the time the New Testament scriptures were being written (he was an eye-witness of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD). As far as textual evidence, there are manuscripts of New Testament writings dating back to the first and second century, and these come from a wide geographical area (Judea, Greece, North Africa, Rome, etc…). Furthermore, these have been found written in different languages (Greek, Arabic, Latin, etc…). It is known among ancient manuscript scholars that there is greater evidence of the authenticity for the New Testament writings than there is for any other work of antiquity (such as Homer’s Iliad, or anything written by Plato or Socrates, etc…).

Some of the other works that she points to were written by Gnostics (they deny that Jesus came in the flesh, which gave rise to the myth of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, and even John addressed this heresay (see 1 John 4:3)), or other heretics. These were denied canonical status because they could not be proven to have been written by their supposed authors, and contain (in some cases) obvious heresies (for example, the Protevangelium of James was supposedly written by the Apostle James, but the earliest work comes from the middle of the second century). Hope this helps!

Thank you I’ve told her this before about the Gnostics … she then changed the subject and said the bible could not be taken seriously because the book of Judas should be included … again tried to tell her that this could never be included …again would not listen.

 

[penguinchicky]

Flavius Josephus Jewish historian, born AD 37, at Jerusalem; died about 101 wrote about Christ from a non-religious view point.

The story of Herod the Great is contained in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words:

About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

Thank you for this. So if Jesus was born in 0 AD and died around the time Flavius Josephus was born then she will say this is again reason to prove he never existed because Flavius Josephus wrote 30+ years after Jesus death.

 

[Leela]

Flavius Josephus Jewish historian, born AD 37, at Jerusalem; died about 101 wrote about Christ from a non-religious view point.

The story of Herod the Great is contained in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words:

About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

If Josephus actually said this, that would make him a Christian himself, wouldn’t it? But of course he was not. Scholars agree that the passage above was a at least in part a forged addition made by members of the Church and is not authentic. The only question for scholars is about whether or not any part of it is authentic or whether it is just completely made up. Wouldn’t it be great if there actually were extra-biblical evidence for the life of Jesus? Someone apparently sure thought so, too. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. But if wishes were stories? I guess we could just make them up, couldn’t we?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

this is from: allaboutjesuschrist.org/is-jesus-god-c.htm

Is Jesus God? Many people have dealt with this “spiritual” dispute by intellectually accepting Jesus as a great man, great teacher, or great prophet. However, Jesus and His inspired followers didn’t mince words when they declared Him to be God (John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16, John 12:40-41 [quoting Isaiah 6:1-10]). Therefore, any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a “good man” is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a “good man,” as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth. In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.

The only real argument that remains, is that Jesus was just a legend or myth. There is little likelihood that Jesus’ claims are legend. There just wasn’t enough time for any legendary development of the story to replace what really happened. For instance, we now know that the Gospels were written 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. More dramatically, we now date some of the early Christian creeds, proclaiming the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, to 3 to 10 years after His crucifixion. This includes Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, Romans and Galatians. Finally, if Jesus’ claim of deity was a myth, the early Jewish opponents of Christianity would surely have presented the fact that these claims never happened. Unlike modern skeptics, the Jewish rabbis never denied that Jesus made the claim that He was God. Instead, they called Him a liar, and tried Him for blasphemy.

 

[tobinatorstark]

this is from: allaboutjesuschrist.org/is-jesus-god-c.htm

Is Jesus God? Many people have dealt with this “spiritual” dispute by intellectually accepting Jesus as a great man, great teacher, or great prophet. However, Jesus and His inspired followers didn’t mince words when they declared Him to be God (John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16, John 12:40-41 [quoting Isaiah 6:1-10]). Therefore, any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a “good man” is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a “good man,” as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth. In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.

The only real argument that remains, is that Jesus was just a legend or myth. There is little likelihood that Jesus’ claims are legend. There just wasn’t enough time for any legendary development of the story to replace what really happened. For instance, we now know that the Gospels were written 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. More dramatically, we now date some of the early Christian creeds, proclaiming the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, to 3 to 10 years after His crucifixion. This includes Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, Romans and Galatians. Finally, if Jesus’ claim of deity was a myth, the early Jewish opponents of Christianity would surely have presented the fact that these claims never happened. Unlike modern skeptics, the Jewish rabbis never denied that Jesus made the claim that He was God. Instead, they called Him a liar, and tried Him for blasphemy.

not a Catholic site. This site is to promote the false King James Version. Read up on it./

 

[Leela]

this is from: allaboutjesuschrist.org/is-jesus-god-c.htm

Is Jesus God? Many people have dealt with this “spiritual” dispute by intellectually accepting Jesus as a great man, great teacher, or great prophet. However, Jesus and His inspired followers didn’t mince words when they declared Him to be God (John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16, John 12:40-41 [quoting Isaiah 6:1-10]). Therefore, any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a “good man” is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a “good man,” as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth. In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.

The only real argument that remains, is that Jesus was just a legend or myth. There is little likelihood that Jesus’ claims are legend. There just wasn’t enough time for any legendary development of the story to replace what really happened. For instance, we now know that the Gospels were written 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. More dramatically, we now date some of the early Christian creeds, proclaiming the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, to 3 to 10 years after His crucifixion. This includes Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, Romans and Galatians. Finally, if Jesus’ claim of deity was a myth, the early Jewish opponents of Christianity would surely have presented the fact that these claims never happened. Unlike modern skeptics, the Jewish rabbis never denied that Jesus made the claim that He was God. Instead, they called Him a liar, and tried Him for blasphemy.

The liar, lunatic, lord trilemma is a false choice. I think it originated with C.S. Lewis. It was pretty much his m.o. to offer two alternatives and say it must be one or the other, make one of the alternatives look stupid, and then conclude it must be the other, as if those two choices were the only possibilities.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see a fourth possibility: that maybe Jesus existed, but never said what people decades later said he did. We all know how legends develop. Not generally out of whole cloth. We don’t have to think that there never was a man named Jesus who taught in that time and place to imagine that after his death, his followers tried hard to make sense of what happened. Their leader had been crucified. It wasn’t supposed to happen that way. What does all this mean? Looking back in the scriptures they came up with a solution. The read passages about a Righteous One suffering death. He must have been vindicated by God. He wasn’t an earthly messiah, he was a spiritual messiah that was exalted to heaven! Later the story continues to develop. If he was exalted, then he wasn’t really dead, so Christians started telling stories of his resurection. These embellishments didn’t necessarily happen at at once or right away. they could have taken years to develop as the story of Jesus was passed from person to person as new Christians were converted and retold the story to convert other new Christians who then converted more Christians. The story continued to evolve until it was written down, and we know for a fact that it continued to evolve after it was written down because we have the lots of manuscripts with lots of differences, and we can compare the later ones to the earlier to see which additions were added and when. For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery is not in our oldest manuscripts and was apparently a later addition. (It’s still a great story.)

Is this a plausible account? If you don’t think so, to judge the evidence from a historical perspective you have to ask, is it more plausible than a person rising from the dead? Virtually any account would be.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The liar, lunatic, lord trilemma is a false choice. I think it originated with C.S. Lewis. It was pretty much his m.o. to offer two alternatives and say it must be one or the other, make one of the alternatives look stupid, and then conclude it must be the other, as if those two choices were the only possibilities.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see a fourth possibility: that maybe Jesus existed, but never said what people decades later said he did. We all know how legends develop. Not generally out of whole cloth. We don’t have to think that there never was a man named Jesus who taught in that time and place to imagine that after his death, his followers tried hard to make sense of what happened. Their leader had been crucified. It wasn’t supposed to happen that way. What does all this mean? Looking back in the scriptures they came up with a solution. The read passages about a Righteous One suffering death. He must have been vindicated by God. He wasn’t an earthly messiah, he was a spiritual messiah that was exalted to heaven! Later the story continues to develop. If he was exalted, then he wasn’t really dead, so Christians started telling stories of his resurection. These embellishments didn’t necessarily happen at at once or right away. they could have taken years to develop as the story of Jesus was passed from person to person as new Christians were converted and retold the story to convert other new Christians who then converted more Christians. The story continued to evolve until it was written down, and we know for a fact that it continued to evolve after it was written down because we have the lots of manuscripts with lots of differences, and we can compare the later ones to the earlier to see which additions were added and when. For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery is not in our oldest manuscripts and was apparently a later addition. (It’s still a great story.)

Is this a plausible account? If you don’t think so, to judge the evidence from a historical perspective you have to ask, is it more plausible than a person rising from the dead? Virtually any account would be.

But in any case, he did exist.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The liar, lunatic, lord trilemma is a false choice. I think it originated with C.S. Lewis. It was pretty much his m.o. to offer two alternatives and say it must be one or the other, make one of the alternatives look stupid, and then conclude it must be the other, as if those two choices were the only possibilities.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see a fourth possibility: that maybe Jesus existed, but never said what people decades later said he did. We all know how legends develop. Not generally out of whole cloth. We don’t have to think that there never was a man named Jesus who taught in that time and place to imagine that after his death, his followers tried hard to make sense of what happened. Their leader had been crucified. It wasn’t supposed to happen that way. What does all this mean? Looking back in the scriptures they came up with a solution. The read passages about a Righteous One suffering death. He must have been vindicated by God. He wasn’t an earthly messiah, he was a spiritual messiah that was exalted to heaven! Later the story continues to develop. If he was exalted, then he wasn’t really dead, so Christians started telling stories of his resurection. These embellishments didn’t necessarily happen at at once or right away. they could have taken years to develop as the story of Jesus was passed from person to person as new Christians were converted and retold the story to convert other new Christians who then converted more Christians. The story continued to evolve until it was written down, and we know for a fact that it continued to evolve after it was written down because we have the lots of manuscripts with lots of differences, and we can compare the later ones to the earlier to see which additions were added and when. For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery is not in our oldest manuscripts and was apparently a later addition. (It’s still a great story.)

Is this a plausible account? If you don’t think so, to judge the evidence from a historical perspective you have to ask, is it more plausible than a person rising from the dead? Virtually any account would be.

This post is a great insult to Christians everywhere