Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you refute someone who denies the existence of Jesus as a man? I've met quite a few people that think Jesus, even as an historical figure, never existed. Isn't it common historical knowledge that Jesus at least existed as a human being?
One historian Flavius Josephus who was a 1st century Roman Jewish writer on the history of the Jewish wars and Antiquities of the Jews gave reference to Jesus the Messiah and even John the Baptist , and James brother of Jesus from this book Testimonium Flavianum..........See there were historians in those times apart from the biblical account ...... Some would say that Jesus never lived and was made up , Just wonder if they would deny that Abraham Lincoln or George Washington was also just made up , as no one in this time has seen these people , except historians
One historian Flavius Josephus who was a 1st century Roman Jewish writer on the history of the Jewish wars and Antiquities of the Jews gave reference to Jesus the Messiah and even John the Baptist , and James brother of Jesus from this book Testimonium Flavianum..........See there were historians in those times apart from the biblical account ...... Some would say that Jesus never lived and was made up , Just wonder if they would deny that Abraham Lincoln or George Washington was also just made up , as no one in this time has seen these people , except historians
You forget about the controversy over that mention by Josephus...Interpolation...
I tend to argue that Tacitus is the only persuasive extra Biblical reference to the Gospel Jesus. I also argue the 'principle of embarrassment' which is that the Christians would have had Jesus born in Judea. That he was a Nazarene had to be explained in various ways. Also I doubt whether they would (had they made him up entirely) have had him crucified by the Romans. Stoned by the Sanhedrin perhaps. Those two items - and the temple cleansing, of course, suggests facts they were stuck with and had to explain, gloss over or (e.g. at the trial) ignore. That suggests to me that they had the story of a real person which was not altogether suitable for them.
I do agree that the Josephus potted biography looks very much an interpolation by a Christian writer. The reference to James as 'the brother of Jesus' now looks like a gloss and didn't refer to James the less at all.
Those are my reasons for thinking there really was an historical Jesus.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-25-2014 at 05:40 PM..
VTHokieFan,
Some good responses so far.. and your question comes right on cue. If you're interested, the most recent issue (Jan/Feb 2015) of Biblical Archeology Review ran a decent, impartial article 'Did Jesus Exist', which cited some of the extra-biblical references to Jesus, & the existence of early Christians. Here's a link promoting their recent issue w/the article. I usually can find copies @ Barnes & Noble. Biblical Archaeology Review Magazine – Biblical Archaeology Society
ps., I'm looking forward to your Hokies' Military Bowl this weekend. peace
How do you refute someone who denies the existence of Jesus as a man? I've met quite a few people that think Jesus, even as an historical figure, never existed. Isn't it common historical knowledge that Jesus at least existed as a human being?
Extrabiblical accounts for Jesus's existence as well as other people mentioned in the NT.
I believe there was some spark of truth in the stories of Jesus. In the same way that the stories of David were fabrications based on a real man. The stories were fictional, but they mentioned real places, etc. So the historicity of Jesus could have had some truth to it.
I tend to argue that Tacitus is the only persuasive extra Biblical reference to the Gospel Jesus. I also argue the 'principle of embarrassment' which is that the Christians would have had Jesus born in Judea. That he was a Nazarene had to be explained in various ways. Also I doubt whether they would (had they made him up entirely) have had him crucified by the Romans. Stoned by the Sanhedrin perhaps. Those two items - and the temple cleansing, of course, suggests facts they were stuck with and had to explain, gloss over or (e.g. at the trial) ignore. That suggests to me that they had the story of a real person which was not altogether suitable for them.
I do agree that the Josephus potted biography looks very much an interpolation by a Christian writer. The reference to James as 'the brother of Jesus' now looks like a gloss and didn't refer to James the less at all.
Those are my reasons for thinking there really was an historical Jesus.
The 'principle of embarrassment 'means you have to know their beliefs well enough to know what would be embarrassing to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
