So which is it Christians? If there is any shred of evidence that Jesus actually lived, then you aren't taking it on faith.
But that is not something you need to worry about, since not a single historian who lived at the time of Christ mentions him. Even the new testament was written after he supposedly lived.
Chrsitians accept Jesus on faith, yet when you tell them there's no proof of Jesus, they say yes there is?comedy club I don't believe Jesus ever existed because there is no contemporary evidence of his existence (that is, nothing about him recorded during his alleged life)--the 'soonest' evidence we have is from Saul of Tarsus, who wrote about Jesus at LEAST 40 years after his alleged death.
Not only that, but Saul writes with NO knowledge of most of the alleged events of Jesus's life that are mentioned in the Gospels (which came long after Saul's writings (about 80,000 words), keep in mind). He mentions only the last bits about Jesus--him being crucified and rising up to heaven. However, Saul makes it quite clear that he is not talking about an earthly Jesus, but a mythical one, and places the crucifixion etc. in a mythical realm, not earth. The closest he comes to mentioning a Jesus who 'walked among us' is when he mentions that (paraphrasing, bear with me) 'if Jesus lived on earth, he would not be a priest' or something like that.
Yup--that is how shaky the foundation is. Saul's account is the strongest (because his account comes chronologically closest to Jesus's alleged death) link between Jesus's alleged life and the gospels which go into great detail about it. It's the strongest much in the same way that molten lead is the most refreshing drink to be found on Venus.
So basically, we got Saul's stuff, which strongly clashes with the gospels it preceded, and then we've got nothing for several years after that (next account is the Gospel of Mark (which is attributed to Mark but is actually an anonymous work; further supporting this is the fact that there is a consensus that this gospel was written in the 60s or 70s CE--there's no way someone alive during Jesus's alleged life would still be alive in those times). Then suddenly we have all kinds of details about Jesus's life that just seem to pop up out of nowhere. Anyone looking at this objectively would quickly come to the very fair conclusion that the writers of the gospels were 'storytelling' as opposed to recording history when they wrote them. Their goal was to convert people, not to document history, which is why they were writing _gospels_ in the first place.
Now, taking all of that into consideration...is it any wonder that, when taking everything into consideration, one would be quite skeptical of the earthly existence of Jesus Christ as the Bible describes him (it's not that he COULDN'T have existed, but when you take a step back and look at everything objectively, it's quite obvious that it is extremely unlikely)?
P.S. Theologians generally agree that the other three gospels in the Bible are clearly derived from Mark, which is why I didn't mention them specifically.
Chrsitians accept Jesus on faith, yet when you tell them there's no proof of Jesus, they say yes there is?sheet music opera theater
We accept all the details of Jesus life, death, and resurrection on faith, and accept by faith that He was who He said He was: Messiah.
But the fact that He existed is recorded by secular historians.
some points perhaps to consider..
-The 4 gospels were written prior to the year 100. The gospel of mark within a few decades at most.
-The New testament has the earliest and the largest manuscript evidence of any ancient history by leaps and bounds
-Josephus mentions an account of Jesus, an account of James, an extensive account of John the Baptist and confirms other historical events of the period
-Tacitus accounts the Christian movement
-Suetonious' account
-Cassius' Dio's account
-Early enemies of the Christians, such as those engaging in debates(Eg Justin Martyr and Trypho), never doubt the historical existence of Jesus.
-There is never a doubt to the historicity in the early centuries.
-There is no mention of Jesus' upbringing in Gospels, hence there was an aversion of the Christian writers to add mythical elements.
-Historical sites of the New Testament are correctly identified, even when some modern historians believed they didn't exist, for example the pool of siloam
-The letter writers such as Paul hardly add parables or deep sayings to their letters, an indication they were not the authors
.....
Please do just a little research before you TRY to make a point.Many documents about Jesus.No one even questions His living ,it His living again they question.
Most people in the time of Jesus had no clue how to read or right.Check your facts.%26lt;%26gt;%26lt;
The shred of evidence is within every believing person's heart. The healing, the joy, peace, patience, forgiveness of others. It is not inane, or insane, but it is a spark much like when you first fall in love and you know that you are longing to be together with your sweetheart. It is there, it is real, and you never have to walk alone when the Savior dwells within your heart. I pray that some day you will be able to have this very beautiful experience with the Creator. I pray that the shield you use to keep Him out will melt and you can look inward and know who you are with Him. I really don't know how to explain it but it is quite lovely. Mmm
There is significant legal and historical documentation that Jesus Christ existed. The atheist then whips out conspiracy theory and deems those legal and historical sources corrupted and or misinterpreted.
Is it unusual for biographies of historical figures to be written AFTER they lived? That would be no. If you discount every historical biography for the reason you just stated, then a huge part of history would be wiped out.
Wellll, you may want to reconsider your statement that no historian ever acknowledged Christ's existence. Please read the following:
"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. . . ."
Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82
Written by Tacitus in 64 A.D.
"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"
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.
This was written by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan and mention Christ by name.
And perhaps the most compelling is the following, written by Josephus a first century Jewish historian
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared"
Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.
And last of many more that I could list is from the Babylonian Talmud. In this Jesus is called Yeshu, which is how his name was pronounced in Hebrew and the time. You will also see that the passage says he was hanged, this served as a synonym for crucified, at that time.
"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"
The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
So, in reference to your point about not worrying, I don't! If you were to actually do some research you would find that there is an abundance of writtings either at the time of Christ our saviour or shortly thereafter proving his existence. Now you may either believe in him as the saviour or not, that's up to you. You can not, however, deny his existence.
May I ask, then, since there were no writings about dinosaurs for THOUSANDS of years after their deaths, are we to assume that they didn't exist?
jesus actually did exist, there is evidence in roman records and by books written by jews and by muslims and by christians.
yet when they refer to faith, it is refering to jesus rising from the dead after he was crucified
Yes..yes I do accept Jesus on faith.
But alot of people seem to forget that not only did we have the believers write about Jesus.. During that time they had also people who did not believe in Jesus works..
Remember Jesus really angered (who are we kidding he POed them)the Empire and it is to these accounts that are not fiction but actual "Historical" facts..Let us look at the group that lot of us Christians call the "HOSTEL" side.. Just for a moment.. Please let me indulge if I may...
As Christians it is so hard for so many to look outside the box of the realm to which many were taught. Fortunately, such questions can be answered by an honest appeal to the available historical evidence. Do any records exist to document the claim that Jesus Christ “intervened in the course of events” known as world history?Yes Yes they do. Indeed they do.
When I referred to Hostile people to Jesus I was of course referring to those who Hated Him. The people that mention him in a very negative light. They do not add to his creed or even that he was the Son of God But they did call him Messiah.. He was a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire.. Remember.. so we have a small group of historians that did document the man named Jesus the Messiah and his appointed men.
One was a man named..
1.Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117) was a senator and an historian of the Roman Empire.
2.Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c.71-c.135): Roman scholar and official, best-known as the author of the Lives of the Twelve Caesars.
3.Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (63 - ca. 113), better known as Pliny the Younger, was a lawyer, an author and a natural philosopher of Ancient Rome.
Now these are not the Apostles of Jesus but these men were Officials of the Roman Empire. Since you do not want to belive as I do on just faith.But on a historians that mention Jesus the man. You are well sadly mistaken. Remember too Jesus was a man that started a new Religion.
Jesus was not just a small little leader in the community.. His crowds were sometimes in the thousands. Do you honestly think something like this would go unoted.Indeed it would not.
Tacitus(#1) He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan.
"Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome"
Tacitus hated both Christians and their namesake, Christ. He therefore had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a “deadly superstition.” He did, however, have something to say about it. His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!
Twice in his history, Suetonius (#2) specifically mentioned Christ or His followers. He wrote, for example:
“Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius—KB] expelled them from the city” (Claudius, 25:4; note that in Acts 18:2 Luke mentioned this expulsion by Claudius). Sanders noted that Chrestus is a misspelling of Christos, “the Greek word that translates the Hebrew ‘Messiah’” (1993, pp. 49-50). Suetonius further commented: “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief” (Nero, 16:2). Again, it is evident that Suetonius and the Roman government had feelings of hatred toward Christ and His alleged mischievous band of rebels. It is equally evident that Suetonius (and, in fact, most of Rome) recognized that Christ was the noteworthy founder of a historically significant new religion.
Last but not least Pliny the Younger (#3)
In approximately A.D. 110-111, Pliny was sent by the Roman emperor Trajan to govern the affairs of the region of Bithynia. From this region, Pliny corresponded with the emperor concerning a problem he viewed as quite serious. He wrote: “I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know the customary penalties or investigations and what limits are observed”
He then went on to state: This is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist, I sentence them to death (as quoted in Wilken, p. 4).Pliny used the term “Christian” or “Christians” seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted term that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny also used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the originator of the “sect.” It is undeniably the case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied in such a way as to draw the attention of the emperor and his magistrates by the time of Pliny’s letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as an actual, historical person.
I hope this finds you interested in finding out more for your studies..
These men mentioned did not write the Bible as we know it..Nor did they Love Jesus.They were infact reputable people.
Many believe that the reason the Bible was written some 20 years after Jesus death was because after his death. You would have to talk in silance and did not want the writtings distroyed..So the marking of the fish was born.. But thats another study all togeather.. Gods Blessing to you..
I pray all will seek,learn and discover the answers are out there one just has to know were to look.
no what we take on faith is that he was God in human body not that he was a real person
there is actually proof that he did live as it is written in the bible, it was his trial sentence written by the scribe, it talks about where he was born and that he was chosen to die over a criminal.
so we have proof that he did exist but we take it on faith that he was God
and so what if it was written after he lived bibliographies on Abe Lincoln were written after he died and we know he lived just because the official text came later does not mean anything
I'll give you this much; your determination is noteworthy. Fanatical, but noteworthy.
Where do you guys get this stuff?
There is proof of Jesus living. i have faith that he is the Son of God. That is the difference.This answers your long and uninformed question.
Not a single Historian?They are Human. The ones that wrote about Jesus was inspired by God.
yes a historian did write about him
Actually, his existence hasn't come into question. People dispute who he was, not that he existed.
The Roman historian Josephus, who had no "axe to grind" for or against Christianity , actually wrote that their WAS a genuine historical figure at that time.
The current information documenting the life of Jesus is restricted to the gospels and the work of Church theologians. One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.
The Russian scholar, Nicolai Notovich, was the first to suggest that Christ may have gone to India. In 1887, Notovich, a Russian scholar and Orientalist, arrived in Kashmir during one of several journeys to the Orient. At the Zoji-la pass Notovich was a guest in a Buddhist monastery, where a monk told him of the bhodisattva saint called "Issa". Notovich was stunned by the remarkable parallels of Issa's teachings and martyrdom with that of Christ's life, teachings and crucifixion.
For about sixteen years, Christ travelled through Turkey, Persia, Western Europe and possibly England. He finally arrived with Mary to a place near Kashmir, where she died. After many years in Kashmir, teaching to an appreciative population, who venerated him as a great prophet, reformer and saint, he died and was buried in a tomb in Kashmir itself.
The first step in Christ's trail after the Crucifixion is found in the Persian scholar F. Mohammed's historical work "Jami-ut-tuwarik" which tells of Christ's arrival in the kingdom of Nisibis, by royal invitation. (Nisibis is today known as Nusaybin in Turkey) . This is reiterated in the Imam Abu Jafar Muhammed's "Tafsi-Ibn-i-Jamir at-tubri." Kersten found that in both Turkey and Persia there are ancient stories of a saint called "Yuz Asaf" ("Leader of the Healed"), whose behaviour, miracles and teachings are remarkably similar to that of Christ.
The many Islamic and Hindu historical works recording local history and legends of kings, noblemen and saints of the areas thought to be travelled by Jesus also give evidence of a Christ like man; the Koran, for example, refers to Christ as "Issar". Further east, the Kurdish tribes of Eastern Anatolia have several stories describing Christ's stay in Eastern Turkey after his resurrection. These traditional legends have been ignored by the theological community.
no not true....Christ was mentioned by "seculars" of the time on numerous documents and by many different people....oh, what a skeptic you are!!!!
I believe Paul used a beloved Essene Rabbi Yeshua ben Yoseph and blended his story with Mithra to invent Christianity.
All four gospels are written from eyewitness accounts, Matthew was a disciple, John was a disciple, Mark was taught by Simon Peter, a disciple, and Luke was taught by the apostle Paul, an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. Not only this but the New Testament is the most historically valid ancient document of all time. Do you believe Julius Cesar existed? If you do you must believe Christ existed because there is more written evidence about him. By your view why do you believe anything in history, since the New Testament is unrivaled by other ancient documents in validity. There is evidence of Christ by many other sources as well, some that are written in answers above me. Roman, Jewish, and other early Christian sources. If you really look into it, you will find many sources saying a man named Jesus of Nazareth really existed. The question is what will you do with Him? By the way, almost all historians accept Jesus Christ existed as do most atheist. God bless.
Secular History of Jesus
There is the writing, for example of "Flavius Josephus" commissioned by the Romans to write a "history" of their conquests. Being he was commissioned by the Romans he could not cover Jesus, in depth, because they wanted to hear about themselves, not some supposed Messiah. The fact that he wrote anything about Jesus is actually a wonder to most scholars and that the Romans left the information in the history.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/joseph...
Here is another source of information:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.h...
