Widely accepted evidence of Jesus

[catholictiger]

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

 

[MarianD]

Besides miraculous evidence, there’s no much I know of. Historical records are limited because the only historians at the time who were non-Christian were either Jewish or Roman. Jews didn’t think anything of Christ and the Romans would have just thought it was another cult surrounded a dead man like the many others springing up in Rome at the time.

The best historical evidence we have that isn’t miraculous (so to speak) is the New Testament itself, in combination with the prophecies of the Old Testament. All other evidence is there (such as the Shroud of Turin), but Atheists refuse to believe it simply because it too obviously proves Christ.

 

[Snerticus]

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

Well, there are a few writings of non-Christians at the time. I think Pliny the Younger and Josephus were two historians that lived ‘approximately’ around the time of Jesus that acknowledged His existence in their writings.

 

[nickybr38]

I know there is at least one historical document that references a man named Jesus who was crucified and something or other about his pesky followers who claim he has risen… but I don’t remember which document this was. :\

Darn my shaky memory.

 

[catholictiger]

Besides miraculous evidence, there’s no much I know of. Historical records are limited because the only historians at the time who were non-Christian were either Jewish or Roman. Jews didn’t think anything of Christ and the Romans would have just thought it was another cult surrounded a dead man like the many others springing up in Rome at the time.

The best historical evidence we have that isn’t miraculous (so to speak) is the New Testament itself, in combination with the prophecies of the Old Testament. All other evidence is there (such as the Shroud of Turin), but Atheists refuse to believe it simply because it too obviously proves Christ.

and don’t forget about all the carbon dating that was horribly done, they took a sample that was chemically different then all the other parts of the shroud

 

[Windfish]

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.

 

[Apollos]

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

You’re going to get tons of evidence from other posters. But I would like to suggest an experimental indirect approach.

Tell him that there are people who have seriously doubted the existence of the outside world. Now your atheist friend would probably scoff at such silliness. But you’ve made your point: if it takes almost superhuman powers of denial to doubt the existence of something so obvious as reality itself - or if it takes the monumental insincerity that can only be found on a college campus - then if your friend denies the existence of Jesus, he is an intellectual coward by comparison.

 

[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

 

[awatkins69]

I’d also recommend some of the wonderful stuff done by Lydia McGrew. Her papers are excellent. Her husband has written good stuff too. Also, on this sort of stuff, I like to keep up with blogs by CADRE Comments and Victor Reppert. Good luck!

 

[Soulewolf]

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

I believe most people believe Jesus existed. Just like Siddhartha or Muhammad.

 

[_Locke]

Snerticus:

I think Pliny the Younger and Josephus were two historians that lived ‘approximately’ around the time of Jesus that acknowledged His existence in their writings.

Both were born after Jesus’ death.

“Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan’s advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny’s writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.” (infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html)

Longer section on Josephus at the same link.
Appollos:

Tell him that there are people who have seriously doubted the existence of the outside world. Now your atheist friend would probably scoff at such silliness.

I don’t know if “silly” is the word I’d use to describe Descartes, the father of modern philosophy.

I would concur that there was a historical Jesus, although the case for a divine miracle worker is a lot spottier.

 

[Apollos]

I don’t know if “silly” is the word I’d use to describe Descartes, the father of modern philosophy.

Hold on, Descartes did not deny the existence of the outside world! But that’s an off-thread topic.

 

[puzzleannie]

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

the shroud is neither here nor there. The gospels are primary source material from the 1st century, accounts of eye witnesses and reports of those who interviewed eyewitnesses to the events in the life of Jesus and their impact. They are backed by reliable secondary source material. That is how historical research is done. Like other historical events there are always going to be people who reject the evidence. My grandmother went to her grave believing the first Apollo moon landing was fake and never happened. There is no cure for invincible ignorance. Someone in any discipline, history, science and the like who simply refuses to examine critically all the available evidence is incapable of remedying ignorance and will not be convinced.

There is a whole sub-genre of early history called “the historical Jesus” and no serious historian doubts the existence of Jesus or the bare-bones account of his life. That also has nothing to do with whether or not they believe in his divinity or in the supernatural dimension of his mission. I can believe that Louis XIV existed without believing in the divine right of kings.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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

Way off the track, but I remember hearing a testimony years ago by a former homosexual who claimed that at his second suicide attempt, Christ materialised in the corner of the room, moved towards him and somehow merged with him. From that time on he claimed he never even had to struggle with homosexual temptation, was married and had a couple of young children.

Now I believe him because of my faith (and also because of some peculiar spiritual experiences of my own). But if he were to tell the same story to a bunch of sceptics they’d say he was hallucinating, lying, off his meds, or whatever. That he was simply telling the truth would never occur to them.

As Christ said, “A man is as he thinks”.

The best you can hope for is that you can offer enough evidence that your atheist might have his curiosity tickled, to go away and do some research for himself. But without faith, no atheist will believe.

Not many Christians come to Christ on a purely intellectual basis.

 

[Snerticus]

Both were born after Jesus’ death.

What does it matter if they were born during his lifetime or after his death? It is still ancient proof. Besides, I put the qualifier ‘approximately’ in my statement, and 30 to 112 years after the fact is approximate enough for me to use that particular qualifier.

I would concur that there was a historical Jesus, although the case for a divine miracle worker is a lot spottier.

The OP did not state he wanted proof of miracle work or divinity. He simply stated the existence of Jesus. Period. That’s what I was trying to do. Even if Pliny and Josephus did not mention Jesus, only Christians, it stands to reason that in the early days of Christianity, there were actually people who believed that Jesus had lived. Personally, I would believe the words of someone who lived 60-100 years after the said person in question more than those who claim the same thing ~2000 years later. That would be proof enough for me. But then again, I’m not atheist.

 

[lemondiesel]

You’re Atheist friend is a terrible “Atheist.” Besides some of the “facts” posted here, we can also take into account how fast Christianity spread. Such a religion shook the foundations of Roman society, and arguably would lead to the collapse of the Empire. If Jesus never existed, this would have been extremely rare for such a fast spread.

All other evidence is there (such as the Shroud of Turin), but Atheists refuse to believe it simply because it too obviously proves Christ.

The Vatican doesn’t even solidify that it is the Shroud of Jesus. They leave it up to the followers, while admitting it could or could not be that of Jesus.

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

• After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
• 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.

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

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.

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.

 

[humble_catholic]

Both were born after Jesus’ death.

“Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan’s advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny’s writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.” (infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html)

Longer section on Josephus at the same link.

I don’t know if “silly” is the word I’d use to describe Descartes, the father of modern philosophy.

Infidels.org is a typical sleptic site in which they conveniently leave out certain evidences that dont support their views. As far as Josephus

I would concur that there was a historical Jesus, although the case for a divine miracle worker is a lot spottier.

Infedils.org is a very poor site when studying the historicity of the bible and Jesus. A site that does a great job of pointing this out is answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=34

Also about one of the Josephus passages even without the interpolation this is what you would get.

facingthechallenge.org/josephus.php

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.’
Even without the questionable additions, notice what this passage tells us about Jesus:

•He was a real historical person
•He was a teacher
•He was a worker of wonders (miracles)
•He gathered a band of followers, who continued to follow him after his death.

However Josephus also had a second passage in antiquities in which virtually all historians agree that is 100% Josephus and here it is
: "However, there is a second reference to Jesus in the works of Josephus. In Antiquities 20.200, he describes how, in AD 62, the high priest Ananus was deposed because he had illegally

convened the Sanhedrin [the highest Jewish religious court / governing body]. He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."

Not only is this written in typical Josephus style but the fact that it called Jesus “the so called Christ” shows clearly that it wasnt written by a Christian but by Josephus who clearly was talking about what the early Christians believed about Jesus. This is a clear indication and within the lifetime of the disciples that shows what Christians even within the lifetime of the dsciples believed about Christ. This is what alot of dishonest skeptic sites will try to steer their readers away from.

Tacitus is another Historian that we should focus on even more as he was noted for his accuracy and research. The fact that alot agree that he would have had access to information held in the roman archives tells us that he was probably privy to the information of Christianity and what Christians believed.

Seek and you shall find, now if you want to ignore the evidence that is your perogative but that doesnt mean it isnt there for anyone else honestly looking for the answers

 

[catholictiger]

You’re Atheist friend is a terrible “Atheist.” Besides some of the “facts” posted here, we can also take into account how fast Christianity spread. Such a religion shook the foundations of Roman society, and arguably would lead to the collapse of the Empire. If Jesus never existed, this would have been extremely rare for such a fast spread.

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.

 

[Snerticus]

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.

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

Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

 

[Windfish]

Some of you guys have posted really good links. Please visit this thread and share them with the rest of us:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=491780

PLEASE!!!