Proof that Jesus lived?

[Bangbang]

If you define proof as historical documentation (this includes outside sources that have nothing to do with the Bible), then yes.

Please show me.

 

[Quiddity]

Ignatius of Antioch
. . . to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is (Epistle to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides
[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Tatian
We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

And you can sort out through some of these as well:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

[Todd]

Here's a good source (although I know these are debated whether they were tampered with or not):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

Regardless of these, no matter how much evidence were to be revealed, someone will always try to dismiss it as false one way or another.

The fact of the matter is that there are more than enough writings, Christian or non-Christian, to conclude that Jesus existed. Many historical figures are proved to exist on just a paragraph or two. There were multiple books (Matthew, Mark, Luke) written about Jesus around the time of Jesus, plus mentions in other non-Christian texts around that time frame.

 

[jeffrey]

Prove to me George Washington existed. Just because there is documentation, does not prove it. Prove that I exist. I might just be a computer generated member that Todd created. You could stand before me and that's still not proof. I might be dreaming. Faith. That what it comes down to. Believing in what you choose to believe.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

See the Early Evidence. The silence is compelling.

OK - I saw that I misread the numbers. Thanks for the link.

 

[Mister_T]

This gets raised over and over again, each time with the same laundry list: Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Sanhedrin 43a - none warranting belief in a historical Jesus.

Ha! I completly forgot about that post. Gotta learn to keep track :bonk: The question was "Is There Proof That Jesus Lived?" You mentioned Josephus (who was definatley NOT a Christian) Josephus was a first century Jewish historian. He was a preist, a Pharisee. He later became a defender of the Romans (which made him extremly hated by his fellow Jews) he made a couple of refrences to Jesus. One of his most recognized works was called The Aniquities, which was a history of the Jewish people from the "creation" until his time. In that book, he describes how a high preist named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus (who's is mentioned in The New Testament) in order to have James (Jesus' brother) killed. Here's the passage "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 having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." There is an even lengthier section about Jesus called the Testimoniium Flavianum. It read like this "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the the truth gladley. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not dissapeared". His book The Antiquities was completed in about 93 A.D. Which means that there were people still living when these events occured. And If Josephus was lying, people would have called him on it. Remember that there was no T.V. or video cameras back then. So oral and written documentation was taken very seriously in regards to being accurate. There surely would have been some documentation of people refuting these claims by Josephus. And seeing as how Jesus and Christians were not at all popular during this period in time (matter of fact they were hated and a lot of them died grusome, horrible deaths) documentation against Josephus would have been overwhelming. That's besides the fact that Josephus was a Jewish Pharisse. If Jesus was a myth, a Jewish Pharisee like Josephus would be one of the first to jump up and say "Hey! Jesus was not real!" Josephus' corroboration is highly significant. Especially since his accounts of the Jewish War have proved to be very accurate (they've been corroborated through archeaelogical excavations at Masada as well as by historians). A lot of historians are deemed accurate by evidence of one or two things that they have recorded. Josephus has been accurate on many things and he is considered to be a pretty reliable historian.

 

[Mister_T]

Please show me.

Check out my previous post. If this isn't enough I can refer you to some books (written by a skeptic, who turned into a believer a few years after his books were finished)

 

[Mister_T]

Are early church writings considered? Or is this piled in the same section as the Bible? Yes they had bias, but does that discount them as credible?

It shouldn't. Bias opinion work both ways. People who don't want to believe will automatically dismiss evidence, and on the other side of the coin, those who want to believe will take anything at face value. That's why you have to educate yourself, approach everything with an open mind, and discover what's true and what's B.S. There are a lot of books and documentation that provide a very compelling argument in favor of God and Jesus.

 

[linwood]

There is an even lengthier section about Jesus called the Testimoniium Flavianum. It read like this "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the the truth gladley. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not dissapeared". His book The Antiquities was completed in about 93 A.D. Which means that there were people still living when these events occured. And If Josephus was lying, people would have called him on it.

People didn`t call him on it because he didn`t write it.

First of all what you`ve writtten isn`t the TF, this is the TF translated from Greek to English.

Antiquities 18.3.3. "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 the 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 from him, are not extinct to this day."

The words in red are highly spurious for being written by a devout Jew.
In fact I`d say they were heresy as Judiasm has never believed as Judaic Christians did that Jesus was the Christ.
To write that "Jesus was the Christ" is the same as writing "Jesus was the Messiah."
A Jew would never do this.

Also, we do not have Josephus`s writings where the TF supposedly is written, "Antiquities of the Jews".
What we have are Greek translations of his writings, translations that were written by..yes, you guessed it..early Christian Church fathers.

In the case of the TF Eusebius wrote the TF.
It is rather out of context in the midst of a documentation of "troublemakers" but the TF speaks highly of Jesus.
Directly after the TF he goes on to speak of something "even more outragious" but the TF isn`t outragious at all but complimentary.

Regardless of whether the TF was written by Josephus or not you will be hard pressed to find any scholarly opinion that it isn`t at the very least altered and out of context.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

 

[linwood]

Are early church writings considered? Or is this piled in the same section as the Bible? Yes they had bias, but does that discount them as credible?

They should be admissable as holding bias.

The gospels themselves cannot be admitted because they are exactly what is on trial.

It would like taken the word of the accused as unbiased evidence.

However I don`t know how the Italian justice system works.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mister_T, your comments would have been much improved by the judicious additio of white space and scholarship. So, for example ...

Josephus was a first century Jewish historian. He was a preist, a Pharisee.

No. Josephus was not a Pharisee.

osephus has been accurate on many things and he is considered to be a pretty reliable historian.

Then you accept the following from Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews - Book VI

This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner 6 [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The gospels themselves cannot be admitted because they are exactly what is on trial.

Linwood,

I don't want to take you out of context here, but wouldn't it be odd to exclude the Gospels from any inquiry about the historical Jesus, being that they are the only sources (in this case, it is Jesus on trial, and not the Gospels)? They are four different books that share the same sources occasionally, and at other times rely on independent sources.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't want to take you out of context here, but wouldn't it be odd to exclude the Gospels from any inquiry about the historical Jesus, being that they are the only sources (in this case, it is Jesus on trial, and not the Gospels)? They are four different books that share the same sources occasionally, and at other times rely on independent sources.

What "independent sources"? On what grounds do you exclude fabrication and embelishment?

 

[linwood]

Linwood,

I don't want to take you out of context here, but wouldn't it be odd to exclude the Gospels from any inquiry about the historical Jesus, being that they are the only sources (in this case, it is Jesus on trial, and not the Gospels)? They are four different books that share the same sources occasionally, and at other times rely on independent sources.

You`re not taking me out of context and I understand your point.

I first want to say that I am no legal expert, Pah knows much more about American law than I so if he should see this I`d like a critique on what I`m about to say from him.

Under US law heresay is not allowed to be admitted as evidence.
In order to use the gospels as "witness" the defense would have to be able to show who the authors were definitively and those authors would have to shown to have witnessed that which they wrote of.

I want to stress again that I`m quoting my understanding of US law (Which may be incorrect) not Italian law which may be entirely different but I don`t think it would be too different.

 

[linwood]

What "independent sources"? On what grounds do you exclude fabrication and embelishment?

I think he`s speaking of the septuagint and a few other translational sources used in a couple of the gospels.

Whether one would consider them "independent" or not is up for debate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think he`s speaking of the septuagint ...

That would be foolish. I'll wait for his answer ...

 

[Todd]

More examples and my thoughts.

Tacitus A.D 64

"Nero fastened the guilt . . . 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 . . . 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. . . "

Christus meaning Christ. Suffered the extreme penalty meaning Crucifixion. Obviously this wasn't a Christian writing this since he talks of Pilatus superstition regarding Jesus and referring to how it broke out in Judaea as the first source of the evil. Plus, this superstition would indicate that it was wide spread even through Rome. The death and resurection of Christ shook people up in that time frame so that it spread like wildfire. This was writen in a short time frame after Christ's death and resurection.

Pliny the Younger A.D 112

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Yes, this was written after Christ's time on earth. However, many of the believers could have still been alive or at the very least, it was the immediate decendants of the people who new and saw Christ. It also shows the life that these people bound themselves to. Also, take a close look at "they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god". This would indicate that Christ walked as a man since he is astonished that they are singing to him as a god.. This was definitely not written by a Christian. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia. He wrote this letter to ask for advice on how to deal with those who were accused of being Christians.

Babylonian Talmud A.D 70-200

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Yeshu can be translated Jesus. Just another example.

Lucian of Samosata (Second Century)

"The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."

Yes, he was a Greek satirist, but it shows an early account of Christian faith. Yet another example of early writings about Jesus. It doesn't mention his name in his jesting, but it implies who he is talking about.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I first want to say that I am no legal expert, Pah knows much more about American law than I so if he should see this I`d like a critique on what I`m about to say from him.

Under US law heresay is not allowed to be admitted as evidence.
.

I am not Pah, but I am a licensed practicing attorney who has tried just under 30 jury trials, and I can tell you that barring a few well defined exceptions, that heresay is not allowed in court.

The case for Jesus would have a difficult time convincing a jury, especially if all the hearsay was excluded.

Oh, and I read the link Jayhawker posted, very interesting stuff. I agree, the silence is deafening.

B.

 

[Abram]

Out of curiosity how much proof do you need to believe? Seems to me there is enough to justify a belief in his existence. Even from some who deny his claim to be the Lord. I guess some spend a life time to prove him wrong and some spend it to prove him right. The Bible even predicted this very fact.

 

[Mister_T]

No. Josephus was not a Pharisee

Really? Can you back that up with something? The information I posted was testimony from Edwin M. Yamauchi P.H.D. from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He is considered one of the country's leading experts in ancient history. He has a bachelor's degree in Hebrew and Hellenistics, a masters and a doctorate degree in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University. He has been awarded eight fellowships, from the Rutgers Research Council, National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society and others. He has studied 22 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Egytian, Russian, Syriac, Ugaritic, and even Commanche. He has delivered 71 papers before learned societies: lectured at more than 100 seminars, universities, and colleges, including Yale, Princeton, and Cornell. He served as chairman and then president of the Institute for Biblical research and president of the Conference on Faith and History and published 80 articles in 37 scholarly journals. In 1968 he participated in the first excavations of the Herodian temple in Jerusalem, revealing evidence of the temple's destruction in 70 A.D. Archaeology has been the them in several of his books including The Stones and Scriptures, The Scriptures and Archaeology, and The World of the First Christians..........I think it's safe to say that the man knows his stuff. He lives for it. The title above his office door is "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free". A man with this type of educational background would not endorse a lie nor would he take anything at face value.