You would think so, wouldn’t you? I didn’t think of your point that “if christ had been made up the jews would have said something”. That makes a lot of sense. I certainly appreciate you (name removed by moderator)ut. I’ve heard of these sources before, especially josephus, but the problem is that he wrote a lot of stuff, and I don’t have time to wade through it all, at least not at this moment in time. If you happen to find the article, I’d appreciate it if you shared. Thank you so much.I read an article responding to this question a while ago. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find it. I remember the jist of it though. It cited several Jewish and pagan accounts. I remember Josephus (a Jew) was one of them. For me, the strongest argument for Jesus’ existence was the silence of the Jews. The early Christians were seen as enemies to the Jews, and it’s logical that the Jews would have stopped Christianity in its tracks had Jesus been “made up”. In other words, if Jesus had not existed, they would have said something. Instead, the Jews admitted to Christ’s existence, even in such books as their holy Talmud. I admit, it takes faith to believe in the Gospel Jesus. Like in my school history book, Jesus is acknowledged as a historical person, but definitely not the Gospel Jesus. But this reasoning takes a little faith too, considering eleven of the Twelve Apostles were martyred and suffered tremendously for their faith. It seems that if they had just made up the religion that they would not have died for it.
The first would be Tacitus(c. 55 -117 CE) who mentions Christ in the context of persecution of the Christians under Nero (AD 64). Tacitus is considered a reliable scholar of his time,as he had access to Roman archives.Would the members of the forum please help me with this problem? I’m looking for extra-biblical sources of christ’s existence for the purpose of evangelizing athiests. Thanks, in christ’s love always,
Skeptictank
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by a “moniker”, but thank you. I’ve actually been a member for a while, but my registration was “misplaced” or something, so I just re-registered. I don’t know if all of my old posts are still in existence what with the previous hack, but anyway, I’m back. This is a great place to get aid in research.Skeptic Tank,
Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums! I hope you have a blessed and uplifting time here. And I get a real laugh out of your moniker.
Yes, I agree. Skeptics even question the existence of the apostles, saying that their lives were simpley made up to 1) guilt people into faith and 2) so that latter leaders of the church could point at one of the apostles as their teacher, thus making them superior.The problem with looking for extra-biblical sources of Christ’s existence is that about the fourth century, the Church got together and put all their best evidences for Christ all in one place, and called it the New Testament. Now the skeptics are asking for evidence that is outside of this body of evidence–in other words, anything that the Church Fathers might have missed.
Yes, I found one in the talmud in my research.There are a couple of references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus (but skeptics usually dismiss the more detailed one as a later interpolation) and in the Talmud (or so I believe I heard once).
If this is the one I think you’re talking about, I would dismiss it as well, and I think others have a pretty good reason for dismissing it. once again, if we’re talking about the same physical description, it describes jesus as having blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin.There is also a “Letter from Lentullus” which gives a physical description of Jesus but which is also dismissed as a fake by people who don’t want to take Jesus seriously.
A quick google gives the following:
Thanks for your help and thanks to everyone else too. You guys have been great.
- Liberian
[/QUOTE]In the interest of balance, I think it’s fair to say that there are significant, scholarly arguments that seriously question the validity of all extra-Biblical sources we have for the historical existence of Jesus - every single one, and these aren’t all from non-Christian scholars either.
I would have to dispute this last statement.Yes, that does present a problem.
"1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. "
"1Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. "
In the same chapter Paul extols the importance of both proof and faith. In the human sense, I can see how you would value a proven faith less than one which isn’t, but I see no valid reason for this perception, especially in light of scripture.
The gospels are a powerfull testimony of his existence. The negative argument boils down to, “claims require evidence. Christianity claims the existence of jesus, stories written thousands of years ago are insufficient evidence. All claims are false until proven true. Christianities claim of the existence of jesus is false.” I certainly can’t dispute this logically, though I could use this same argument to dispute the existence of a great many historical figures. I just like to have as much “proof” as possible, as the bible tells me I should.Let me say that it’s not necessarily blind faith, though. We can see the hand of God in many ways, and we can imagine what the world would be like if there had never been any such thing as Christianity.
Skeptictank
My main objection is that proof diminishes the value of faith. I don’t have any particular reason to doubt your integrity. I think that any historical source may be discredited as far as any conclusions which may be drawn from it.I see no reason for you not to look for proof, however, I’m pretty sure that you won’t find any if you do so objectively and completely. Just be careful of unintended consequences though.
Really? What do you mean by that, because if you mean what I think you do, it doesn’t seem to make any sense. There are a great deal of commands in the bible, most of which pertain to anyone who calls themselves a follower of christ.By the way, the Bible doesn’t tell me to do anything.
What exactly is the relation of this fact with your previous statement?The Church tells me, but even then, I don’t always necessarily agree with everything it says.
Subject to interperetation, yes. Certainly you don’t mean to say that the bible instructs gods childeren do you?The Bible is a guide which is highly subject to interpretation, not a step-by-step instruction manual.
If we take Ignatius,Clement, Polycarp or Papias,who all knew the apostles directly, for instance. Who doubt their existence or the authenticity of some of their writings (and why)? If such people’s existence are also questioned, then, what about the next generation, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian or Origen, who all claim to have known the former mentioned disciples of the apostles. Where does the validity question end?In the interest of balance, I think it’s fair to say that there are significant, scholarly arguments that seriously question the validity of all extra-Biblical sources we have for the historical existence of Jesus - every single one, and these aren’t all from non-Christian scholars either.
Many atheist do indeed believe in the historical Jesus, but not in the miracles He performed nor in His resurrection. In other words, “religious” faith is not needed to believe in the historical Jesus of Nazareth, crucified under Pontius Pilate. Certainly, some do indeed use the argument of doubts about the historicity of Jesus and the apostles, since it is the easiest means to explain away His resurrection. So far, I’m not impressed with their arguments…could you write down your personal concerns for the historical Jesus?It would be wonderful to have definitive proof of Jesus’ historicity, but the truth is, we don’t have any, at least not at present. Ultimately, there’s no way around it, it all still comes down to faith. But then, if we did have unquestionable historical proof, faith might not have the same value it has now.
In my opinion, I don’t see a different world would exist if christianity would not exist. The christian message speaks of a new heaven and a new earth. We need to await for the resurrection of the dead before we see the full effect of the GospelLet me say that it’s not necessarily blind faith, though. We can see the hand of God in many ways, and we can imagine what the world would be like if there had never been any such thing as Christianity.