I need non-biblical and non-christian proof of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter jay29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jay29

Guest
I am in a debate with pagans and agnostics. I need any proof other than those I listed. Here is what I am facing:

“I stand by my point. Jesus is strictly a MYTHOLOGICAL figure, and I dare you to proove me otherwise with facts and evidence, not quotes from the bible or faith pushing.”

Any help would be appreciated.
 
40.png
jay29:
I am in a debate with pagans and agnostics. I need any proof other than those I listed. Here is what I am facing:

“I stand by my point. Jesus is strictly a MYTHOLOGICAL figure, and I dare you to proove me otherwise with facts and evidence, not quotes from the bible or faith pushing.”

Any help would be appreciated.
I doubt you’ll get any help. There isn’t any evidence aside from what’s in the Bible.

The best you can do is try to prove that the Bible is a reliable historical account of what happened and is evidence of a historical Christ.
 
40.png
jay29:
I am in a debate with pagans and agnostics. I need any proof other than those I listed. Here is what I am facing:

“I stand by my point. Jesus is strictly a MYTHOLOGICAL figure, and I dare you to proove me otherwise with facts and evidence, not quotes from the bible or faith pushing.”

Any help would be appreciated.
First, you need to take the ring out of your nose and not let them lead you around. If they do not accept the Gospels as historic just because it is a religious book, make them prove it to you that it isn’t historically reliable. I’ll save them the trouble: they won’t be able to; in fact the Bible can be shown to be historical on a number of points. You’ll need to do a little research on this, but if you’re going to be engaging in this type of debate, get used to research.

Secondly, given the Bible is a reliable historical document, the Gospel manuscript evidence in age and number is greater for Jesus than many historical figures, including Julius Caeser. Ask them to prove his existence using contemporary documents alone, and see how far they get. Then ask them why they would trust those sources but not the Bible (and, no, bigotry against religion is not an answer).
 
If I recall correctly, “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel pretty much lays a case for Christ’s existence apart from Biblical reference. You might want to pick on up to read through it. I finished in a day, it’s not a thick book and it moves quickly.

But, honestly, the best way to reach people who challenge you to prove God’s existence is to pray for their conversion. When it finally happens they may or may never learn what you did for them, but you’ll know, and God will too. We aren’t here to win debates, we’re here to convert souls and words are not the only means by doing so.

Good luck.
 
40.png
Fidelis:
First, you need to take the ring out of your nose and not let them lead you around. If they do not accept the Gospels as historic just because it is a religious book, make them prove it to you that it isn’t historically reliable. I’ll save them the trouble: they won’t be able to; in fact the Bible can be shown to be historical on a number of points. You’ll need to do a little research on this, but if you’re going to be engaging in this type of debate, get used to research.
But the burden of proof is on the one making a positive assertion. If you claim that the bible is historically reliable, you must justify this claim.

People who make positive claims must provide proof. Otherwise, why take any of their claims seriously?

Do you think the Quran is historically reliable? Do you think the Book of Mormon is historically reliable? Why not? Because you don’t have any reason to, right?

Unless you have a reason to think they’re reliable, the natural position is to make no judgment. The natural assumption should by no means be the Bible is historically reliable.
 
Jay29,

Well, any proof that Jesus is who He said He is by definition Christian, so your buddies are asking for a logical impossibility.

As another respondent suggested, put the ball back in their court by asking why they consider the Gospels to be unhistorical. Based simply on the sheer number and quality of the ancient manuscripts, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are absolutely the best-documented events in history from more than a thousand years ago. The Punic Wars, Caesar’s Commentaries, Herodotus, everything else is known only by a few Medieval manuscripts. The New Testament is known from thousands of manuscripts dating as early as the second century.

Jesus was also mentioned by Josephus, a Jewish historian. I think there were some other mentions in other non-Christian Roman writings but don’t have specifics.

I would also point out to your buddies that Jesus’ burial shroud is in a church in Turin, Italy. Its whereabouts have been known continuously since the fourteenth century (or earlier) and there is no known way–even known to modern technology–for the image to have been burned into the threads as it is. And for ancient technology to have done this–after all, moderns are fond of pooh-poohing the technological level of the Middle Ages–is out of the question.
  • Liberian
 
40.png
jay29:
I am in a debate with pagans and agnostics. I need any proof other than those I listed. Here is what I am facing:

“I stand by my point. Jesus is strictly a MYTHOLOGICAL figure, and I dare you to proove me otherwise with facts and evidence, not quotes from the bible or faith pushing.”

Any help would be appreciated.
Ask why virtually every secular scholar disagrees with him. This position is a marginal position believed by no one without a serious ideological axe to grind. That doesn’t prove it false. But it isn’t a view anyone would hold purely on historical grounds.

The consensus of NT scholarship, religious and secular, is that Jesus did exist, that He was crucified, that his early followers quickly came to believe that He rose again, and that the New Testament contains at least some authentic records of His words and deeds.

This consensus does *not *prove that the Bible is a “reliable historical document” throughout. As I’ve said on another thread, I don’t see how one can expect a non-Christian to believe that without first accepting Christian presuppositions.

What is the point of this argument anyway? You aren’t trying to prove Christianity, are you? I think that’s a silly and hopeless task. You can show that there’s good evidence for some of the basic facts, and that’s abouta s far as you can go.

Edwin
 
Josephus, the Jewish historian (not a Jew who converted to Christianity) did mention Jesus in his book “Antiquities of the Jews”. Josephus was born in 37 ad so he never personally saw Jesus. Book 18 paragraph 3 mentions that there was a man named Jesus who performed many wondrous works and drew many over to His side. He also mentions Jesus in book 20 saying that James the brother of Jesus was held before some judges, etc. Be advised that some of the text of Book 18 is under suspicion as not being Josephus’ work. There are remarks in there “He is the Christ” and “on the third day he rose from the dead” which are considered by historians to be added to the text later. But, most historians agree that Jesus was indeed mentioned.
As far as historical accuracy is concerned. Time and again the New Testament has been proven correct by archeological finds. This cannot be said for the Book of Mormon. I have no information in that regard to the Quran.
Furthermore, the New Testament is a compilation of books from different authors. The gospels were intended to be the accounting of Christ. They were referred to by Justin Martyr as the “memoirs of the apostles”. Doesn’t sound like mythology to me. I’m not an expert on mythology, but it seems that many centuries would have to pass for a myth to develop. The NT was written long before that time period elapsed.

I’ll be praying for you!
 
Dare I say…

I don’t think the point is whether or not he existed (I strongly believe he did). What difference will it make to a non-believer if he existed or not? You must believe in WHAT HE DID (water into wine at Cana, raising Lazarus from the dead, institution of the Eucharist, resurrection from the dead, etc.) That is why it is called faith.
 
40.png
svoboda:
But the burden of proof is on the one making a positive assertion. If you claim that the bible is historically reliable, you must justify this claim.
As I said, the historically reliability of the gospels is well attested. If you want to start a whole 'nother thread on the relaibility of the gospels, be my guest. 🙂
Do you think the Quran is historically reliable? Do you think the Book of Mormon is historically reliable? Why not? Because you don’t have any reason to, right?
I believe these books to be historically unreliable because I have checked the “evidence” for their history and found it lacking.
Unless you have a reason to think they’re reliable, the natural position is to make no judgment. The natural assumption should by no means be the Bible is historically reliable.
That is true, and that is why I pointed out that many proofs can be shown they they are. 🙂
 
40.png
Prayer_Warrior:
Josephus, the Jewish historian (not a Jew who converted to Christianity) did mention Jesus in his book “Antiquities of the Jews”. Josephus was born in 37 ad so he never personally saw Jesus. Book 18 paragraph 3 mentions that there was a man named Jesus who performed many wondrous works and drew many over to His side. He also mentions Jesus in book 20 saying that James the brother of Jesus was held before some judges, etc. Be advised that some of the text of Book 18 is under suspicion as not being Josephus’ work. There are remarks in there “He is the Christ” and “on the third day he rose from the dead” which are considered by historians to be added to the text later. But, most historians agree that Jesus was indeed mentioned.
There is consensus that the Josephus passage as it is written is an interpolation. In it, Josephus, a Jew, basically proclaims in a somewhat fanatical tone that Jesus was God and the messiah etc. Read it for yourself:
Antiquities, book 18, chapter 3
“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; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at 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 after him, are not extinct at this day.”
Might Josephus have mentioned a Jesus? Maybe. But maybe he said “and there was Jesus, a wise rabbi, he had some followers” who knows what he actually said. Either way, Josephus was born after Jesus left this earth, so his testimony is hardly first hand.
As far as historical accuracy is concerned. Time and again the New Testament has been proven correct by archeological finds.
Such as?
Furthermore, the New Testament is a compilation of books from different authors. The gospels were intended to be the accounting of Christ. They were referred to by Justin Martyr as the “memoirs of the apostles”. Doesn’t sound like mythology to me. I’m not an expert on mythology, but it seems that many centuries would have to pass for a myth to develop. The NT was written long before that time period elapsed.
Read the gospels chronologically: Mark, Matthew/Luke, John. You can virtually see the myth develop. There are about 20 years between Mark and John.

Read Paul, he wrote 50AD onward. Does he quote the historical Jesus? Does he mention where Jesus lived, who he talked to, what kinds of miracles her performed?
 
40.png
Fidelis:
As I said, the historically reliability of the gospels is well attested.
Is it so? Tell me, why are documents written 40 - 60 years after the events in them took place by people who were not there but probably got their information by word-of-mouth transmission historically reliable? And even then the manuscripts we have of them do not date back to the first century, I think the earliest fragment we actually have is 125AD of a piece of John’s gospel.

If the story of a man who died in 1930 was written by people who never knew him in 1970’s - 1990’s, and alleged that that man performed miracles and was resurrected, would you consider that reliable?

To the credit of the Bible, Paul wrote from 50AD onward and does mention Jesus, but he doesn’t talk about his miracles, he doesn’t quote his teachings (as far as I know). Either way, writings from 1950’s by a man alleging to have had a vision of the man who died in 1930… hmm…

Where are the first hand accounts? Where are the writings of people who personally knew Jesus? Of people who were alive and writing during his ministry? Why didn’t Jesus write anything himself? Why isn’t the virgin birth mentioned in Mark? Read the three synoptic gospels and compare them…

I don’t doubt that something happened, otherwise what would have motivated people to write? But what happened and when? Who knows.

The pressing question is why didn’t Jesus write anything or leave evidence behind. If so much is riding on our belief in him, why not leave evidence that no one could doubt?
 
Continuing with references to Josephus’ “The Antiquities”, Josephus writes, “He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of haveing transgressed the law and delievered them up to be stoned.”

Compare this with John 7:5 and 1Cor 15:7 to corroborate the fact that some people considered Jesus to be the Christ.

Jesephus’ “Testimonium Flavianum” has already been mentioned but despite the probable interpolations it is solid historical proof of Jesus’ existence.

Let’s not forget Tacitus in A.D. 115 explicitly states that Nero persecuted the Christians as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself for the great fire that had devastated Rome in A.D. 64.

“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 superstitution, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the fist source of the evil, but even in Rome… 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.”

Pliny the Youger, governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey wrote around A.D. 111,

“I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished… They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery… This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they called deconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths.”

Julius Africanus in about A.D. 221 quoted a historian named Thallus who in A.D. 52 wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trogan War. It was concerning the total darkness that is written of in the gospels.

“Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun–unreasonably, as it seems to me.”

Here is a quote by Professor M. Wilcox concerning Jewish references of Jesus,

"The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a healer and** miracle-worker**, even though it ascribes these activites to sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he **had disciples ** (five of them), and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages had finally made up their minds that he was a “heretic” or a “deceiver.”

I hope this helps. 🙂
 
40.png
svoboda:
Is it so? Tell me, why are documents written 40 - 60 years after the events in them took place by people who were not there but probably got their information by word-of-mouth transmission historically reliable? And even then the manuscripts we have of them do not date back to the first century, I think the earliest fragment we actually have is 125AD of a piece of John’s gospel.

If the story of a man who died in 1930 was written by people who never knew him in 1970’s - 1990’s, and alleged that that man performed miracles and was resurrected, would you consider that reliable?

To the credit of the Bible, Paul wrote from 50AD onward and does mention Jesus, but he doesn’t talk about his miracles, he doesn’t quote his teachings (as far as I know). Either way, writings from 1950’s by a man alleging to have had a vision of the man who died in 1930… hmm…

Where are the first hand accounts? Where are the writings of people who personally knew Jesus? Of people who were alive and writing during his ministry? Why didn’t Jesus write anything himself? Why isn’t the virgin birth mentioned in Mark? Read the three synoptic gospels and compare them…

I don’t doubt that something happened, otherwise what would have motivated people to write? But what happened and when? Who knows.

The pressing question is why didn’t Jesus write anything or leave evidence behind. If so much is riding on our belief in him, why not leave evidence that no one could doubt?
Let me quote Craig L. Blomberg PH.D.,

“The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy. Only in the centuries after these two writers did legendary material develop. In other words,** the first five hundred years kept Alexander’s story pretty much intact**.”

The gospels are generally accepted to be written: Mark in the 70’s, Matthew and Luke in the 80’s, and John in the 90’s. So that’s between 30+ to 60+ years after Jesus’ death, which is still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses.

Blomberg also notes that Acts “cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62”…because “Acts ends abruptly probably because Paul was put to death.” “Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part–the gospel of Luke–must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier. If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50’s. If Jesus was put to death in A.D. 30 or 33, we’re talking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so.”

Blomberg follows, “Historically speaking, especially compared with Alexander the Great, that’s like a news flash!” 😃
 
40.png
jay29:
I am in a debate with pagans and agnostics. I need any proof other than those I listed. Here is what I am facing:

“I stand by my point. Jesus is strictly a MYTHOLOGICAL figure, and I dare you to proove me otherwise with facts and evidence, not quotes from the bible or faith pushing.”

Any help would be appreciated.
Their arguement is meaningless. They reject Christian sources because they assume they are dishonest. All sources can be assumed to be dishonest. However Josephus is one old Jewish source from the first century AD.
 
40.png
jay29:
I am in a debate with pagans and agnostics. I need any proof other than those I listed. Here is what I am facing:

“I stand by my point. Jesus is strictly a MYTHOLOGICAL figure, and I dare you to proove me otherwise with facts and evidence, not quotes from the bible or faith pushing.”

Any help would be appreciated.
Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who lived circa 56-120 AD. He is believed to have been born in France or Gaul into a provincial aristocratic family. He became a senator, a consul, and eventually governor of Asia.

Tacitus wrote at least four historic treatises. Around 115 AD, he published Annals in which he explicitly states that Nero prosecuted the Christians in order to draw attention away from himself for Rome’s devastating fire of 64 AD. In that context, he mentions Christus who was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
[Christus: Annals 15.44.2-8](javascript:Open_Window(‘Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, BOOK XV, chapter 44’))

“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…”

jesus-institute.org/life-of-jesus-ancient/jesus-tacitus.shtml
 
40.png
jay29:
I am in a debate with pagans and agnostics. I need any proof other than those I listed. Here is what I am facing:

“I stand by my point. Jesus is strictly a MYTHOLOGICAL figure, and I dare you to proove me otherwise with facts and evidence, not quotes from the bible or faith pushing.”

Any help would be appreciated.
I don’t like giving you this one due to it’s heretical content, but it is evidence…

webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html

Subrosa
 
svoboda,

Do you also deny other historical writings based on your “unbiased” standards? Consider Homer’s Iliad, which was the bible of the ancient Greeks. I’ll quote Bruce M. Metzger PH.D., “There are fewer than 650 Greek manuscripts of it today. They are from the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. on. When you consider that Homer composed his epic about 800 B.C. you can see there’s a very lengthy gap.”

So that makes the closest runner-up to the New Testament, Homer’s Iliad by comparison a comic book. 😃

The New Testament has more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts that have been discovered and cataloged. Around 5,664 ** to be exact! Not to mention the 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate ** manuscripts, and the 8,000 Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian. In all, there are about 24,000 manuscripts in existence.

Said the late F.F. Bruce, eminent professor at the University of Manchester, England, and author of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?: “There is no body of ancient literature in the wolrd which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”
 
40.png
jay29:
I am in a debate with pagans and agnostics. I need any proof other than those I listed. Here is what I am facing:

“I stand by my point. Jesus is strictly a MYTHOLOGICAL figure, and I dare you to proove me otherwise with facts and evidence, not quotes from the bible or faith pushing.”

Any help would be appreciated.
Flavius Josephus mentions him, but the burden is on the other side. There ius as much evidence of the existence of Jesus as there is of the existence of Socrates.
 
40.png
JezCat:
Continuing with references to Josephus’ “The Antiquities”, Josephus writes, “He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of haveing transgressed the law and delievered them up to be stoned.”
But it is entirely possible that there was a Jesus called the Christ, which really means the Messiah as far as I know. So what? I’ve read that many people during that time were saying they were the messiah. Maybe Jesus was one of them.

This passage does not corroborate the Jesus of the gospels.

The important part is that Josephus was born after Jesus already left the earth. Even if authentic, this is not a first hand source.
Jesephus’ “Testimonium Flavianum” has already been mentioned but despite the probable interpolations it is solid historical proof of Jesus’ existence.
What makes you think the entire passage is not an interpolation?
Let’s not forget **Tacitus in A.D. 115 ** explicitly states that **Nero persecuted the Christians ** as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself for the great fire that had devastated Rome in A.D. 64.
“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 superstitution, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the fist source of the evil, but even in Rome… 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.”
115 AD is too late to be a first hand source. Tacitus certainly wasn’t there to witness these events, and since it is written 85 years after the events transpired chances are anyone who could have been a witness was already dead. He is getting his information from somewhere, most likely the beliefs of Christians themselves.
Pliny the Youger, governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey wrote** around A.D. 111, **
“I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished… They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery… This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they called deconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths.”
This shows that Christians existed in the second century AD, nothing more. But then we already knew that.
Julius Africanus in about A.D. 221 quoted a historian named Thallus who in A.D. 52 wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trogan War. It was concerning the total darkness that is written of in the gospels.
“Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun–unreasonably, as it seems to me.”
I recall reading that a solar eclipse happened in 29 AD that would have appeared as a partial eclipse in Jerusalem. If there really was a world-wide darkness, how come it is not recorded over and over by many people in many countries? A pretty big event to pass unnoticed.

All of these sources are around 100 years too late to be first hand sources. These are not the writings of Jesus’ contemporaries, these are not the writings of Jesus himself, these are not the writings of the people who wrote when Jesus lived.
"The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a healer and** miracle-worker**, even though it ascribes these activites to sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he **had disciples ** (five of them), and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages had finally made up their minds that he was a “heretic” or a “deceiver.”
If you provide the actual sources and their dates, we can discuss them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top