Widely accepted evidence of Jesus

[catholictiger]

…or ‘narrow minded’, or having ‘tunnel vision’.

Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

yes very and they will probably complain that we aren’t open enough so we “barinwashed” by religion and will never change our mind

 

[Holly3278]

Other than the Gospels, which obviously tell the truth cause the disciples would not have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie, the Jewish historian, Josephus, speaks of His existence. Other than that, I think I have heard that a Roman named Tacitus also mentions His existence.

 

[catholictiger]

Other than the Gospels, which obviously tell the truth cause the disciples would not have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie, the Jewish historian, Josephus, speaks of His existence. Other than that, I think I have heard that a Roman named Tacitus also mentions His existence.

once at a stuebenville conference one of the speakers made that same exact point about.

he told a story about how he sat to a guy in a plane who thought the body of jesus was stolen, cause he saw it on the history channel.

but you are exactly right i can’t think of anyone who would die for something that was a complete lie and there was no bit of truth to what they preached, they would be like oh hey we where just kidding with you guys we actually stole it now will you let us live.

so the only logical possibility is that it is the truth.

but another objection they may come up with is that it really wasn’t written by people who saw jesus it was made up by someone long after jesus they will claim

 

[lemondiesel]

don’t know if this is directed at me but these aren’t really my friends i just talk to them on message boards not this one.

but they aren’t the sharpest pencil in the box

like most athiest they seem to be closed to any possiblity that isn’t their believe and everytime someone calls their believe into question they either call you irrational or stupid.

The ‘kicker’ is, no one is right. We can all say we are, but it is personal speculation along with personal choices in belief that make us “right.” We will know eventually though…one day

 

[VeritasSeeker]

You should read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. It sets out the historical evidence for Christianity. amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284695038&sr=8-1.

Widely accepted historical “facts” about Christianity(even my secular historians) would be like:

• That Jesus Christ was Crucified under Pontius Pilate.
• After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
• On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
• On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
• The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
• Christian beliefs were first passed down by word of mouth.
• Paul’s conversion
• That Christianity first spread in Jerusalem

There have been numerous archeological tomb findings with the name “Jesus” (Yeshua) in Greek, so that “fact” is still heresay.

You have to realize that there have been many archeological tomb findings(according to you) with the name Yeshua because Yeshua was such a common name during the first centuries. There are also many forgeries like the one that was recently discovered. You see a regular tomb by itself is not worth much, but when you add the inscription “Jesus” to it, it becomes worth thousands. PhD historians are not convinced. Not to mention that if Jesus’ tomb was not empty than the Romans could have simply exhumed the body, and Christianity would never have started.

And why do you believe the disciples had predisposition? If Jesus miracles were facts, then his disciples already had the evidence that he could defy death, yet somehow they are “amazed” that he rose from the dead.

Miracles were also not as convincing to the people at that time as it is now, because they already believed in miracles and such. Many people, even if they were to see a miracle in front of their eyes, would not believe. The Jewish talmud, for example, describes Jesus as a sorcerer.

They have predispositions because :
1. Their leader was dead.

And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.

2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Its hard to believe that the disciples were martyred for what they knew to be a lie.

Passed down by word of mouth, the type of Tradition that can easily be affected by outside influences. Josephus is your best reference for historical facts.

Not true, the Jews had a profound oral tradition that they took great pains to accurately pass down. The dead scrolls speak mountains to this.

 

[Pieman333272]

Here’s a minor but indisputable reference to Jesus by Josephus, indisputable because its wholly secular:

Josephus:

But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, [who was called Christ], whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent.

the ]'s are there because its possible that part only was added later by accident. There’s more to the chapter, but I forget which writing this is from and couldn’t track down the rest. (I found this online via Google)

Here’s a good book on the Shroud of Turin, I’m a big fan of this author’s work on the Shroud, my one criticism is he denies the “repair seam” theory against the Carbon Dating. There’s also an ossuary that says “James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus” on it in Hebrew but it is unknown if the “brother of…” part is authentic.

I also remember a book showing the Catholic Church could be traced back to the time of Jesus, but I forget where or what it was called.

Hope I helped!

 

[lhk0pd]

Actually most of the proof offered on this is not proof as there is more proof that Josephus mention of Christ is a insertion at a later time, Taitus remarks by many scholars are considered altered to support Christian beliefs. The way they believe about the forgeries is the lack of support in the writings of the early Church fathers.
The best proof of Christ existence is the Catholic Church it's self. By the way there is much suspicion that most of the New Testament was tampered with in order to support Christian belief. Just as Jehovah's Witnesses have altered the meaning of certain Bible verses to match there belief's it is believed it was done also by early Christians. So once again our best support comes from the existence of the Catholic Church through it's Apostolic Succession.

 

[antonabe]

A Jewish Historian called Flavius Josephus has recorded in fair detail the existance of Jesus.He says he was a man if you could call him a man who performed many miracles and had a large following.He even mentions the ressurrection of Jesus,the presence of John the Baptist and mentions that the Apostle James was martyred.Josephus was not a follower of Jesus and this is independent testimony.You could read the book online on the web in the Website dedicated to him www. flaviusjosephus.com or search Yahoo or Google for Flavius Josephus

 

[antonabe]

This is what Josephus says about Jesus"At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed (surprising / wonderful) works, and a teacher of people who received the (truth / unusual) with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist, for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct."

 

[antonabe]

Josephus has recorded the following about John the Baptist,
"John the Baptist
In Antiquities, 18.5.2, Josephus discusses the ministry of John the Baptist.

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.”

 

[Logos_of_Ed]

If so go to the Nicean Creed and Hoomousious in the yr. 325 for the Truth to the matter

This would better be posted in the “Apologetics” forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20

The topic is huge. The notion that Jesus didn’t exist is ludicrous and only hyper-hyper-hyper skeptics hold to it, and even then, they cannot hold onto their doubt with falling trap to several logical fallacies. The book I recommended to you before is a good resource:

Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist?

Is the New Testament Reliable by Paul Barnett is a really good and popular resource.

I would do some more research on it, but we have Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, and many other historians which verify the existence of Christ. The writings of Paul are probably the earliest records which verify his existence, and this is something that no skeptic has been able to overcome.

Remember, skeptics are, well, skeptics. They’re irrational and irritating since they hold on to the skeptical probability, no matter how slim, because of their commitment to doubt.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Many people believe Jesus did exist. In fact, that really isn’t the point of the debate. What concerns most skeptics is in fact whether Jesus was the Son of God.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[abucs]

We should remember that we cannot prove to each other what we had for breakfast last Monday. Whatever ‘proof’ is given could always be regarded as inadequate and the more proof presented the more some people would be suspicious that it was constructed to mislead people.

When 1st century Christians were discussing objections to Christianity there is no mention that the non-Christian Jews were charging that Jesus did not exist.

We know the Palestinian Christian Jews and the non-Christian Jews did not see eye to eye in the middle first century but there is no record in that dialogue that the non-Christian Jews made the argument that Jesus didn’t exist which would be the obvious refutation were it true.

archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/04-03/04-19-03/a06op041.htm

Perhaps your friend will listen to the words of a more modern secular Jew (Albert Einstein) when asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus -

“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

(P.S. If the new non-destructive dating processes can put the Shroud at the 1st century then this would be an interesting case.)

 

[lemondiesel]

Many people believe Jesus did exist. In fact, that really isn’t the point of the debate. What concerns most skeptics is in fact whether Jesus was the Son of God.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

exactly. There are many people that will argue the existence of Jesus, but that is irrelevant. The debate rests on whether he was god or man, which means whether he could perform “miracles” or not.

Personally I think his “miracles” were helping people cope with there disability, and have them accept that it was okay. He helped them overcome their disability.

 

[antonabe]

The biggest miracle is his resurrection and his ascension.The apostles and the evangelists will not lie and also sacrifice their lives by being brutally martyred if what they preached was untrue.They went about preaching the word of God and as a result they suffered and died for him because they knew the truth having being fortunate to be in his presence in that generation

 

[hartleymartin]

I agree with an earlier point that historians by and large accept that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure. Atheists would either try to deny that he ever lived. This is usually in attempt to avoid any theological proofs that he is the son of God, and thus God is real. When shown evidence, and how it is accepted that Jesus is an historical figure, then they fall back on the line that Jesus was not the Son of God. When we indeed have historical documents (3 synoptic Gospels) which tell us all about his life and ministry.

Being a history student, I really find that Luke’s Gospel and the book of acts speaks deeply to me, as Luke was Greek (cultured) and a doctor (a man of science) who went to find out the truth about Jesus (investigative journalist/historian?) I am fascinated as to why the Gospels are not considered to be historical texts when that is exactly what they are. Any historian can investigated the history of the Bible and plainly see that many books of the Bible are books of history. I have never understood why it is that people want to reject the obvious truth.

 

[AntiTheist]

I don’t deny that Jesus existed – I merely think that there is insufficient evidence to claim that the character Jesus – as portrayed in the Gospels – actually existed.

There may very well have been an historical person (or people) upon whom the Gospel legends were based (in the same way that the King Arthur legends may have been based on a real king or kings), but the amount of evidence for the existence of the character from the Gospels is exactly the same as the amount of evidence for the existence of the character from the King Arthur legends.

Look at the strange pieces of evidence offered in this thread: the writings of historians who lived long after Jesus’ supposed death and who were reporting the legends believed by the cult that worshipped this figure; the writings of Paul, who never knew the historical Jesus but claimed to have encountered his ghost; and, perhaps strangest of all, the claim that “Gee, there must have been a Jesus or Christianity would never have spread so far.” Well, golly. What an airtight argument. You might as well argue that there had to have been an Osiris, or else the Egytian religion wouldn’t have lasted all those thousands of years.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t deny that Jesus existed – I merely think that there is insufficient evidence to claim that the character Jesus – as portrayed in the Gospels – actually existed.

What additional evidence would you require?

There may very well have been an historical person (or people) upon whom the Gospel legends were based (in the same way that the King Arthur legends may have been based on a real king or kings), but the amount of evidence for the existence of the character from the Gospels is exactly the same as the amount of evidence for the existence of the character from the King Arthur legends.

King Arthur did not found an international organisation based on the noblest moral teaching known to mankind, inspired men and women to dedicate their lives to the afflicted and create much of the finest art, music and architecture in the world.

Look at the strange pieces of evidence offered in this thread: the writings of historians who lived long after Jesus’ supposed death and who were reporting the legends believed by the cult that worshipped this figure…

Christianity is not a collection of writings of historians who lived long after Jesus’ supposed death but an organised community dating back to the time of Apostles. They and successors have given the world precise accounts of the life, teaching and achievements of their Master as well as following His command to remember Him by celebrating the Last Supper and putting His precepts into practice by living as a community.

…the writings of Paul, who never knew the historical Jesus but claimed to have encountered his ghost;

How else do you explain the sudden change of heart of a zealous Jew who was persecuting the Christians like a member of the Gestapo?

…perhaps strangest of all, the claim that “Gee, there must have been a Jesus or Christianity would never have spread so far.” Well, golly. What an airtight argument. You might as well argue that there had to have been an Osiris, or else the Egytian religion wouldn’t have lasted all those thousands of years.

It is absurd to compare the cult and influence of Osiris to the influence of Christ on the modern world.

 

[Tuno]

is there any that exist or they all skeptical evidences like i know the shroud is not widely accepted as evidence of Jesus.

this would need to be evidence that could convince an atheist that Jesus existed

Why would you bother trying to argue an atheist in to believing that Jesus lived using dubious “proofs?” If we are not examples of what He taught and are therefor not attractive enough in spirit that people ask “What makes you so extraordinary?” We have other work to do before attempting to convert someone.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would you bother trying to argue an atheist in to believing that Jesus lived using dubious “proofs?” If we are not examples of what He taught and are therefor not attractive enough in spirit that people ask “What makes you so extraordinary?” We have other work to do before attempting to convert someone.

I take your point that moral and spiritual nobility should be the hallmark of Christians yet it is also important to explain why belief in Jesus is not mere superstition. To claim that we should be examples of what He taught implies that our faith is authentic! If He were a myth what would be the source of His teaching?