Proof that Jesus lived?

[Smoke]

It seems no matter what proof anyone comes up with, whether a Christian writer or not, it just gets explained away. So if there is no proof of Jesus and in your eyes he just a myth, where did it come from? Who thought up this story that has the ability to withstand scrutiny for 2000 years? and who knows how many more? Who is this man Jesus, from who's mind was he created? Seems to me Christianity couldn't just be thought up, on the cuff as you go stuff. Seems that it is interwoven in the fabric of our life's. Some say he may not exist, yet that he would have been a great man. It's all a myth, yet I still abide by some of his commands?

There is no undeniable proof that Jesus ever existed. But I think the preponderance of the evidence, and the conclusion of most reasonable people, is that he did. The lack of undeniable proof does not invalidate Christianity, nor would undeniable proof of his existence validate Christianity. In short, as you've noted, this kind of argument is a no-win situation for Christians. My answer, as someone who is not a Christian but is trying to learn to follow the teachings of Jesus, is: No, I cannot prove beyond any doubt that Jesus existed. But the evidence I have is sufficient for me.

 

[Abram]

There is no undeniable proof that Jesus ever existed. But I think the preponderance of the evidence, and the conclusion of most reasonable people, is that he did. The lack of undeniable proof does not invalidate Christianity, nor would undeniable proof of his existence validate Christianity. In short, as you've noted, this kind of argument is a no-win situation for Christians. My answer, as someone who is not a Christian but is trying to learn to follow the teachings of Jesus, is: No, I cannot prove beyond any doubt that Jesus existed. But the evidence I have is sufficient for me.

But for the people that have all the answers, the ones that have a reason why not to rebuttal every reason why. If all these documents were frauds and it's all made up. Then where, who, and how did Jesus come alive in the modern society? The non believer need to have a reason for the story. Way to precise to just make up as we go. So many people gave their life's for this belief. Defend your point of denial and show me how Jesus became the center of all history without really existing. One of us is right and one of us our wrong?

*deep breath* had to vent, but we are talking about some peoples Lord here(mine) not some mere man!

 

[Smoke]

Defend your point of denial and show me how Jesus became the center of all history without really existing. One of us is right and one of us our wrong?

Barking up the wrong tree, Abram. I don't believe in Christianity, but I do believe in Jesus.

 

[Abram]

Barking up the wrong tree, Abram. I don't believe in Christianity, but I do believe in Jesus.

Oh I know!Sorry bout that, I was asking the ones that don't believe he ever exsisted. This is not a question of diety, it's the questions of where his story came from? To the ones that think he is a all out made up person.

 

[Smoke]

Oh I know!Sorry bout that, I was asking the ones that don't believe he ever exsisted. This is not a question of diety, it's the questions of where his story came from? To the ones that think he is a all out made up person.

Well, they're asking for too much. There's no written, contemporary evidence for the existence of Moses. There's no written, contemporary evidence for the existence of Muhammad except for the Qur'an, which wasn't compiled and standardized during his lifetime. There's no written, contemporary evidence for the existence of Buddha or Mahavira. There's no written, contemporary evidence for the existence of Boudica.(There's coinage associated with her, but as far as I know none of it bears her name or an image that can be definitely identified as hers.) Why would anybody expect an itinerant teacher in Galilee to attract the attention of writers in Rome, Athens, or Alexandria?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

You might be a bit off on Muhammed, Midnight. Lots of literate Arabs around the Arabian Peninsula during the mid 7th Century that were writing stories about Muhammed contemporaneously with his life. You also might refer to the Hadith.

But the old testament figures, I totally agree, no real evidence for them having existed.

B.

 

[Quiddity]

You might be a bit off on Muhammed, Midnight. Lots of literate Arabs around the Arabian Peninsula during the mid 7th Century that were writing stories about Muhammed contemporaneously with his life. You also might refer to the Hadith.

But the old testament figures, I totally agree, no real evidence for them having existed.

B.

Mdm, what is the difference between these literate Arabs and early christian writings outside the bible?

 

[Smoke]

You might be a bit off on Muhammed, Midnight. Lots of literate Arabs around the Arabian Peninsula during the mid 7th Century that were writing stories about Muhammed contemporaneously with his life. You also might refer to the Hadith.

I don't know of any contemporary biography of Muhammad. The hadith, also, were not collected during his lifetime.

But the old testament figures, I totally agree, no real evidence for them having existed.

I suspect that Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had some basis in history. At least, some of the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and to a lesser extent Moses) seem to predate the adoption of monotheism by the Israelites. I think there's probably some basis for these people having existed, even if the surviving legends are questionable. But proof is another thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Was it expected in your opinion? If so, why?

It very much depends on which Jesus you're talking about:

1. The itinerant preacher to whom is attributed a handful of stories and sayings later layered with embellishment and anti-Judaic polemic? Probably not. But this Jesus is no more than a place-holder to be exploited decades later by Paul.
2. The Jesus known to the masses, known to Herod, known to Pilate, known to the Sanhedrin, whose Virgin Birth attracted Magi and motivated infanticide, who magically fed 5000, raised the dead, played a central role of notorious yet shunned prisoner in an Annual Pesach prisoner release which, also, in unattested outside the Bible? Yes, I would expect something beyond the interpolations of the TF.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It very much depends on which Jesus you're talking about:

1. The itinerant preacher to whom is attributed a handful of stories and sayings later layered with embellishment and anti-Judaic polemic? Probably not. But this Jesus is no more than a place-holder to be exploited decades later by Paul.
2. The Jesus known to the masses, known to Herod, known to Pilate, known to the Sanhedrin, whose Virgin Birth attracted Magi and motivated infanticide, who magically fed 5000, raised the dead, played a central role of notorious yet shunned prisoner in an Annual Pesach prisoner release which, also, in unattested outside the Bible? Yes, I would expect something beyond the interpolations of the TF.

Jay,

I really think that the attitude of the Romans toward the Jews during this time period explains the silence in any case.

Addressing your points:

1) First, I don't agree that belief in a non-miracle working Jesus presupposes that Paul exploited him. If Paul exploited Jesus, the authors of all of our other sources for the historical Jesus went right along with him.

Paul was the first person to write about Jesus. He wrote to churches that other apostles founded and from which the Gospels later originated (at least Mark and John - Luke was written by one of Paul's companions, and I haven't made up my mind about Matthew). The Gospels can be (and I think should be) interpreted not only as interpretations of the historical/mythological Jesus, but also an interpretation of Paul - not the other way around due to when and where the Gospels were written.

In some cases, like the Gospel of John, most likely written from Ephesus, the author had not only the traditions of Jesus but also several of the Pauline letters. It is also likely that Mark originated from Rome, which had the letter to the Romans and perhaps some other letters as well - Romans is dated last among the undisputed Pauline letters - and some of the people from Corinth are listed in Romans 16, making it very likely that these people carried with them some copies of Paul's earlier letters. The Gospels uphold the basic message of Paul: that the promise of salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ for both Jews and Gentiles. A very practical problem in the church because of this message is how Jews and Gentiles can eat together (Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 7) which is also addressed in all of the Gospels, making Jesus the spokesperson for Paul's theology, which in fact has connections to the theological message of the Gospel.

If we remove all of the supernatural elements of the Gospel accounts: the miracle stories, the ressurrection stories, the Son of God claims, and the Magi (depends on the miraculous star) - we are left with a Jesus that is a teacher of the Hebrew Bible (EDIT: We would not expect to find poor teacher of the Hebrew Bible to be in any of our historians.) whose theology nicely compliments the source of Paul's theological reflection: that Jews and Gentiles are united by faith. I have recently found a Q saying in Paul (reference to come - I don't have the book on me), which supports the claim in Acts that Paul met with the apostles shortly after his conversion, and therefore connects his theological reflections to an historical account of Jesus.

2) Even if Jesus worked all the miracles in Scripture, he could still go unnoticed. Palestine was an exceptionally difficult place for the Romans to control and Jesus was one of several self-proclaimed Messiahs around whom people gathered. He was just another person for the Roman machine to squash so that they could keep their precious pax Romana. If we use the NT as an authoritative source, including miracles and such, then the NT explains that Herod wasn't very impressed with Jesus, and it would have only gone on Pilate's record if Jesus had actually managed to start a revolt.

I can elaborate later - I'm out of time now.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good morning.

I really think that the attitude of the Romans toward the Jews during this time period explains the silence in any case.

Josephus identifies a number of messianic claimants, and yet, if the consensus is to be believed, TF is a Christian interpolation.

Philo Judaeus (20 BCE - 40 CE) is silent.

Regarding Justus of Tiberias, one can read in the cite referenced by me earlier ...

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of the Kings of the Jews shortly after the time of Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century:

''Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go ... "​

Apparently the good Patriarch was so struck by the silence of Justus that he attributed it to "the common fault of the Jews".

First, I don't agree that belief in a non-miracle working Jesus presupposes that Paul exploited him. If Paul exploited Jesus, the authors of all of our other sources for the historical Jesus went right along with him.

Of course. They, unlike the Ebionites, were continuing Paul's mission.

The Gospels can be (and I think should be) interpreted not only as interpretations of the historical/mythological Jesus, but also an interpretation of Paul - not the other way around due to when and where the Gospels were written.

I fully agree, except I think it more prudent to substitute "sayings tradition" for "historical/mythological Jesus". For one thing, this allows for the very real possibility that this tradition conflated the mission of a number of Jesus-like preachers operating at that time.

If we remove all of the supernatural elements of the Gospel accounts: the miracle stories, the ressurrection stories, the Son of God claims, and the Magi (depends on the miraculous star) - we are left with a Jesus that is a teacher of the Hebrew Bible whose theology nicely compliments the source of Paul's theological reflection: that Jews and Gentiles are united by faith.

Of course - see Geza Vermes. But that simple points out that Paul and those who followed were effective at evolving a Gentile flavor of eschatological/populist Judaism.

Even if Jesus worked all the miracles in Scripture, he could still go unnoticed.

Of course. That is why I believe that the argument from absence is relatively weak evidence. But it is evidence nonetheless.

If we use the NT as an authoritative source, including miracles and such, then the NT explains that Herod wasn't very impressed with Jesus, and it would have only gone on Pilate's record if Jesus had actually managed to start a revolt.

If you include miracles you get to believe virtually anything from Virgin Birth to zombies strolling the streets of Jerusalem.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Damn you're a nice guy. Where are my manners?! Good morning to you, too.

When we reduce the list that you produced earlier in the thread to Josephus, Justus, and Philo, the argument from silence loses its force it concludes: "This was quite a well-recorded period - there are over 60 authors during these 150 years - certainly a better record than the centuries which followed," but we really could only expect it in three of these authors, and even then the silence can be explained and expected. I must agree that if we would find Jesus anywhere, it would be in these sources. However, IMO, there is a valid argument that the silence is expected. We should also remember that Christianity was not a significant movement at the time that any of these authors wrote, supporting the expectation for silence. (red is for later edits)

It looks to me like the person of Jesus as described in the Gospels or a theory of a historical Jesus would not fit into a book about Jewish kings. The Jesus of the Gospels (supernatual man) was rejected as a heretic by the Jews and the historical Jesus is too insignificant.

Josephus and Philo both were trying to defend Judaism in light of Roman persecution and anti-Semitism. Including Jesus would not serve either of their purposes.

Thanks for the reference to Geza Vermes. I have his translation of the DSS, but I have not followed his work concerning the historical Jesus. I am simply interested in other topics in NT studies.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, I have some sources. I found an article online that you may have access to (you'll need access to ATLA serials available in many libraries):

The words of Jesus: from oral traditions to written record in Paul and Q By: Hollander, Harm W. Source: Novum testamentum, 42 no 4 2000, p 340-357. Publication Type: Article
Full Text From ATLA: Click here for electronic resource

Linked Full Text

I have also been influenced a good deal by Ellis's findings in Paul's Use of the Old Testament and even more so by the conclusions of Hoffmann conerning the relationship of the Gospel traditions to Paul:

Hoffmann, R. Joseph. Marcion, on the restitution of Christianity : an essay on the development of radical Paulinist theology in the second century / R. Joseph Hoffmann. Chico, Calif. : Scholars Press, c1984.

That Q sayings are in Paul is really cool from my perspective. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Josephus and Philo both were trying to defend Judaism in light of Roman persecution and anti-Semitism. Including Jesus would not serve either of their purposes.

I'm afraid, angellous_evangellous, that the argument sounds more than a bit ad hoc. So, for example, from here we read of various claimants ...

1. Judas, son of Hezekiah - Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.56 and Jewish Antiquities 17.271-272.
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE) - Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.57-59 and Jewish Antiquities 17.273-277; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2.
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE) - Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.60-65 and Jewish Antiquities 17.278-284.
4. Judas the Galilean (6 CE) - Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.433 and Jewish Antiquities 18.1-10 and 18.23; Acts of the apostles 5.37.
   Antiquities, 18.109-116.
5. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) - Source: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87.
6. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE) - Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19.338-353 and the Acts of the apostles 1219b-23.
7. Theudas (about 45 CE) - Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98 and Acts of the apostles 5.36.
8. The Egyptian prophet (between 52 and 58 CE) - Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.259-263 and Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171; Acts of the apostles 21.38.
9. An unnamed prophet (c.59 CE) - Source: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.188.
10. Menahem (66 CE) - Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.433-450.
11. John of Gischala (67-70 CE) - Source: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War books 2-6.
12. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE) - Source: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War books 4-7.
13. Jonathan the weaver (73 CE) - Source: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 7.437-450.

Yet you tell us that "including Jesus would not serve either of [Josephus'] purposes." Could you explain why?

Then there's the infamous annual Passover prisoner release, which I believe is unattesed outside the Bible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yet you tell us that "including Jesus would not serve either of [Josephus'] purposes." Could you explain why?

Sure, and I may address the rest of your post later.

My thinking was thus: if Philo and Josephus' primary purpose was to shine a favorable light on Judaism, mentioning someone that the Romans killed or viewed as a thread would not be a good strategy. I must admit that I don't know either of them as well as I should. In light of your post, I see that this reasoning is wrong.

However, my stongest argument is that the historical Jesus is too insignificant and the Jesus of the Gospels is soundly rejected by the Jews, so in either case silence is expected from both Jewish and Roman authors. I'll stick with that for now, and it is a stronger argument than one from silence. Conclusions must match evidence, and I am working with the evidence.

EDIT: So, for example, from here we read of various claimants - Jesus is included in this list with its sources that you challenge.

 

[Quiddity]

But that simple points out that Paul and those who followed were effective at evolving a Gentile flavor of eschatological/populist Judaism.

The early church was constantly trying to identify itself in relation to it's Jewish roots. Paul was a bigger pusher for a Gentile flavor. Barnabas, Peter, and others seem to show more of attachement toward a Jewish flavor. The struggles were readily apparent.

Then there's the infamous annual Passover prisoner release, which I believe is unattesed outside the Bible.

Why would a movement that was seen as hostile to Judaism want to come out?
The Sabbath was even changed to Sunday for similar reasons. Celebrating events on the same day as Judaism would not have been wise, given the tension.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

EDIT: So, for example, from here we read of various claimants - Jesus is included in this list with its sources that you challenge.

The intent was to draw attention to those non-Christian claimants. The fact is that the corresponding entry for Jesus is perfunctory and widely considered an example of pious fraud. The obvious suggestion is that the interpolator, much like the Patriarch of Constantinople, was frustrated by an appaling lack of reference but, rather than blame it on "the common fault of the Jews", simply fabricated the missing reference. Certainly he did not feel that "including Jesus would not serve either of their purposes."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The early church was constantly trying to identify itself in relation to it's Jewish roots. Paul was a bigger pusher for a Gentile flavor. Barnabas, Peter, and others seem to show more of attachement toward a Jewish flavor. The struggles were readily apparent.

I would appreciate knowing why you say that of Barnabas.

Why would a movement that was seen as hostile to Judaism want to come out?

I do not understand your question.

 

[Quiddity]

I would appreciate knowing why you say that of Barnabas.

One example can be seen in the book of Acts. Paul and Barnabas got into sharp dispute about circumcision of believers. A group called the Judaizers wanted to circumcise believers and Barnabas sided with them. This is one example of him wanting to stick to a Judaic flavor.

I do not understand your question.

It would not be odd to expect the writers of the Bible to leave out the "annual Passover prisoner release" when put in their situation, they would probably not want to be released. They tried to avoid celebrating on the same day as the Jews. The Sabbath is a good example of that.

 

[Smoke]

One example can be seen in the book of Acts. Paul and Barnabas got into sharp dispute about circumcision of believers. A group called the Judaizers wanted to circumcise believers and Barnabas sided with them. This is one example of him wanting to stick to a Judaic flavor.

:bonk: I had assumed you were talking about the Epistle of Barnabas.