http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/Bible_and_the_history6


When we begin to examine the texts of the gospels and the Letters of the New Testament, Jesus is the central figure. The four gospels tell us about his life here on earth while the epistles describe the meaning of his death and his resurrection according to Christian belief. We can actually say that if he hadn’t lived on earth, none of these texts would have been written, and the New Testament would not have been born.

As we then start to examine the historicity of Jesus we find proof of his life on earth. This proof has been preserved by his successors, such as the early church fathers, and also from his opponents. Both sources refer to various parts of his life.

Next we examine some sources which refer to his historicity. They clearly show that Jesus really lived on this earth:

“What we know of Jesus amounts to little more than a pragraph.” Dr. C. Shea, Professor of Classics, Ball State University.

There is no credible evidence outside of the gospels for the “Jesus Christ” as “characterized” in the NT. The Jesus of the NT is wholly fictional. Of the 20 plus historians of the 1st century--20 plus!--not a single one mentions, or even alludes to, any “Jesus” that walked upon this earth, died, and was resurrected--not one! There is not a single eyewitness, not one single mention of a “Jesus-god-son” strolling about 1st century Jerusalem in any of the voluminous works of the great historians of the period.

“Aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Nor, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information on the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers. (The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, John E. Remsburg, The Truth Seeker Company, NY, pp. 24-25)



The gospels are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. They were written decades (40+) after his crucifixion and are considered faith documents, midrash.

"It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with... Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--as already it has been often proved--these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them." --St. Faustus, Fifth-Century French Bishop

As for Paul ... He was not an original disciple nor did he know the earthly Jesus, save for in visions. He claims to have received his gospel through divine revelation and not from men.



Then we must consider all religious texts to be authentic and their gods real.

Sean

Mohammed was real. I think Buddha and Moses were real. Alexander the Great was real. Perhaps many that were deified by their followers were once real people and though the stories has shifted and changed through time, real events that altered their cultures and their histories happened.

Ancient legends, myths, and religions are the best we get of the history texts of ancient peoples pretty much. Even those non-relgious texts of Egypt and Rome have slight honorable mentions of supernatural events or cameo apprearences of deities here and there.

It really is fairly impossible to separate the histories from the legends so to throw away all of one would be to throw away all of the other as well.

True, but that doesn't mean they weren't eye-witness accounts. A passage in Mark (too tired to find the exact reference) identifies the author - he was a young man following Jesus around. Since it is generally accepted (even by most liberal scholar's) that Mark was written approximately 70AD, that would make the "young man" only in his 40's, or at the latest in his 50's.

You cannot prove then that Mark is not an eye-witness account.

And the author of the gospel of Luke admits to not being an eye-witness, but claims to be an historian, interviewing only those with 1st hand knowledge of the events.

As with Mark, you cannot disprove Luke as a genuine historically accurate document.

Regards, PA

That works the other way around too...

True, but then it becomes a matter of belief - do you believe the account to be true. If you do, you'll take it as historical. If you do not, then it's not true.

So much for any level of objectivitiy, if you know what I mean.

Regards, PA

so what if others didn't write of Jesus. If I'm not mistaken, many of the Roman historians looked at Christians as foolish and ignorant idiots who gladly died for a cause that he saw as ignorant. Now, if you are testifying of a people after the name of Jesus, are you not witnessing of Jesus himself? We have no historical data about Moses, yet the history of the Jews preserve it, even Josephus wrote about it. 1,000 years from now, will anyone believe a movement was started from a man who never made it famous in the world? Just because the Christians were the only ones who wrote about Jesus, it doesn't mean that their testimony isn't credible. There are alot of great people out there that the world does not know about.

Let me set up a scenario from an outsider's view during Jesus's ministry: One day, I was walking out to catch a pale of water and my buddy came up to me and said that 3 criminals were being put to death, one of whom was a rebel leader named Jesus who claimed that he would tear down the temple in three days and rebuild it. Well, since there are executions every day, I see no sense in recording it.

you see how easy it is to just ignore someone's life. Do you think that person told his grandchild that. Even if his grandchild happened to be a historian?

Lets look at it from a Roman point of view: One day, I was on my way to work and my commander told me to change my guard duty to flog a criminal that was accused of planning a rebellion against Rome. Wow, like that hasn't happened before! So I met up with the rest of my crew and brought the record keeper with me. It was a brutal flogging! I mean blood everywhere. I think it made the record keeper sick and he left the area to relieve himself. Anyway, I heard we was later crucified. Oh, boy. Only two more days until I go back home to Rome.

Its very easy to assume that anyone other than Christians care about Jesus, but the truth is that many saw him as another rebel. So why, write about him. Did they care if the apostles spoke about him? Also note, that the epistles were all written as message to the Church while the apostles or desciples were stationary. This may lead you to understand that if you read acts, you won't believe that the apostles had all the time in the world to write the gospel. 40 years after Jesus death? That still doesn't mean that no apostle wrote the gospel, for didn't John live until 98 A.D.? Even if an apostle's intern wrote it, it is still credible for that is like sending a letter to someone to write about all I taught him and told him to send it to all the Churches of the world. It is still credible.

Gwyny posted: "If I'm not mistaken, many of the Roman historians looked at Christians as foolish and ignorant idiots who gladly died for a cause that he saw as ignorant. Now, if you are testifying of a people after the name of Jesus, are you not witnessing of Jesus himself? We have no historical data about Moses, yet the history of the Jews preserve it, even Josephus wrote about it."

- 99.9% of all Jews today could care less about irrefutable, physical evidence regarding Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Saul, David, Solomon, Samson, Esther, Helen, et al... because belief (Faith) is enough in a religious context. Period.

- As for history: There is more truth in fiction than there is in history.

Michael, and his 2 cents.

how many of them would have had a reason to? i just dont see Jesus fitting in histories about Alexander the Great or the Roman Civil war.

I don't know, but I would think all 20 would want to write about a guy that wlaked on water, turned water to wine, fed thousands with a few small fishes and a couple of loaves of bread, raised the dead, cured the sick and then resurrected after being in the tomb of three days. That had the sun darken, the ground shake and the dead from the tomb and walk around when he died! Don't you think so....then why didn't they? Could it because he never really existed?

wow, some conviction there...i always had though the man to be real, though akin to the buddha or prophet muhammed, in as much as a spreader of a message...incarnation of god...not sure if i go that far though...

I saw a programme on this on the National Geographic channel...and science proved that Jesus was actually on earth

It was an intresting programme

That doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't live. They probably thought of it as ridiculous ravings of his followers. I'm not saying that he did everything that people claim he did, but I feel that he did exist.

How many first person biographies exist of Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra, King Herod, or Alexander the Great. Hundreds to thousands, not twenty, were in daily contact with them.
All historians know lack of first hand documentation is a very weak argument, especially if the documentation was not state protected in any way.

(And what are skeptics spouting skeptisicism doing on this board?)

I think Moses was real, noak's ark, and defenitly Jesus too. I mean that's the whole point of him coming here, through god was for that people would here of the great miracle of a virgin having a miracle child that would save us all through his sacrifice...................

A Jesus perhaps (there were several in that time frame)....even the Bible mentions a different Jesus.

2 Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him

I have seen reference to the first century Jewish historian Josephusno mentioning fewer than nineteen different Jesus's.

I am looking for it.

Boy, what a strawman you are attempting there. But first, how many first person biographies exist of Jesus of Nazareth? Since a first person biography is written in the first person (I, Me, etc) there are absolutely none existing for Jesus of Nazareth! Not only that, the gospels are not true biographies, they only cover about a total of 8 weeks out of a life that spanned over 1664 weeks and were written generations after the events that supposedly happened. Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like, we have a complete history of his life thanks to the following individuals, most of who were eyewitnesses and wrote of him and his exploits:

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar.
In Caesar's struggle with Pompey, Cicero, governor of Cilicia, sided with Pompey but was subsequently pardoned by Caesar.
In March of 44 BC Cicero was a witness to Caesar's murder, though he was not a part of the conspiracy.
Following the assassination, Cicero made a series of speeches known as the "Philippics" which called on the Senate to support Octavian against Mark Antony. Cicero's "Second Phillipics" was an eulogy of Caesar's conquest of Gaul.
Unfortunately for Cicero Octavian reached a temporary rapprochement with Antony, who then ordered Cicero's murder.
Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar.
"... if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state's troops..."
Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC.
Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".
Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".
Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".
Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.
Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".
Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): "Metamorphoses".

We have words written by Caesar himself (On the Gallic Wars) and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar established a style of government – and a calendar – which endured for centuries.
Cleopatra was reported by many of the same historians as was Julius Caesar, plus we have “royal edits” issued by her and engraved on steles in Alexandria and we have mentions of her in the works of Philo of Alexandria.
Herod the Great was mentioned by several contemporary Roman historians, Philo of Alexandria and, although not a contemporary, by Josephus who reported every “sin” ever committed by the man.
Now we will list every contemporary mentions of Jesus of Nazareth:
Well there was…..and then there was…..well maybe there was…..Dang, there aren’t any! Yet another would be Messiah – Apollonius of Tyana is reported on by contemporary writers, wrote several books himself and was accepted as the son of god by a rather sizable following. Jesus doesn’t seem to have written anything nor had any contemporary writers writing about him. Two of the twenty historians writing during that period were contemporary and Jewish (Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberia) but never mention him even once. Philo was an expert on Jewish Cults of that period (Christianity would have been considered such), yet never mentions Jesus or any group that followed him. Tiberia was near Capernaum where Jesus supposedly preached often, yet Justus never once mentioned him. A fact that cause “wonderment” among early Church Fathers. There is more evidence that Jesus didn’t exist than there is evidence that he did!

im sure if anyone was writing a history of holy men from some backwater like Judea, they might have mentioned Jesus, but is there a history full of holy men from Judea? was there anyone besides Josephus that wrote anything in depth about Judea?

Zannie if you watched the show you would get your eyes opened...before hand...I was a lil skeptic whether or not Jesus really did exist..gee I have had manys an arguement saying he may not have existed...ohh this is true LOL

But now science have prooved this as a fact...if you get a chance to catch this show on National Geographic...look up the documentary - Gospel Of Judas...it shows some really intresting facts...that I don't think even an NB can argue with....


don't shoot me LOLI lovies you Zannie LOL

But now I cant go saying my famous lines when someone mentions Jesus - "Ohh yea prove it, there is no proof",--that was my fav line......well I can still use it for other things LOL

You did know it was popular convention of the time to NOT detail the small mundane aspects in a biography? Even the rulers may only have a single anecdote of their childhood, the rest of the biography dedicated to the important points of their adult life.

Just a thought.

Regards, PA

The Jewish historians would have! Not only that but Appollonius was well reported and he was just an obscure holy man form a province near Judea...Your argument doesn't hold water and is a typical apologists ploy. They say that and then expect us to think that the world caught fire for Christianity. You can't have both!
PA, you ought to read the various histories of the period...that was as close as they came to biographies in those days...these histories cover the lives of the various subjects in quite a bit of detail.