Proof of Jesus's Birth, Death & Missing Body by Outside Sources...? (salvation, grace)

[ibcwife]

The greatest argument against Christianity would be the fact that Jesus never lived. If the birth of Jesus did not occur, then of course, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus did not occur. And if there is no resurrection, then death has not been conquered. If death has not been conquered, then sin has not been conquered and we are all doomed. Without the birth of Jesus, Christianity is just another religion based upon legends and myths.

Many argue that the only proof of Jesus' birth is the Bible. And they go on to argue that the Bible is just a book of myths and legends. There is historical, archaeological, and the study of logical reasoning that disproves that the Bible just a book of myths of legends.

If the Bible is true, then Jesus birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are true. Some will argue that you can't trust the Bible because it was written by those who believed in Jesus. If you use this argument regarding biographies and history books (this is what the Four Gospels are like), you see how foolish it is. Many biographies are written by people who loved the person they are writing about, but we do not question their validity. There are those who write about history who have their prejudices but we do not deny the facts that are in their books. Read on the Validity of the Bible.

However, in this section on the Birth of Christ, we will cite sources that are outside of the Bible to prove that Jesus Christ was known to be a real person and not just a fable. This is only a small amount of information-go to the Books Section to obtain much more information on the Historical Evidence of the birth of Jesus. Also, we have a great amount of material discussing the Resurrection of Jesus. If He was resurrected, he obviously was born.

The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived--and that he performed miracles! Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119). If they document his death, then he had to have been born.

It needs to be understood that some of the writings were hostile to Christianity, but still documented the historical fact of Jesus.

JOSEPHUS-Jewish Historian

Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in italics were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, which means he had to have been born.

TACITUS-Gentile Historian

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures 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 one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Annals 15 -44

” Mischievous Superstition”.
Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus’ followers.

A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible. He wrote his history of Rome covering the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, that's 14-96 AD. He used earlier works by historians cross checking them with each other. He sought to verify his facts, something unusual in the writing of the time. He clearly has bias as he hated Domitian and wasn't a great fan of Tiberius, but this would have no bearing on mentions of Christ.

Some say that Tactitus also wrote about Hercules so his works are not valid. Read our response to this accusation.


Suetonius-Gentile Historian

Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv).

Phlegon-Gentile Historian

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21

"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...” Origen Against Celsus

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32).
References

There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.

So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born?

Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth:
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Jesus Birth is true, if His Crucifixion is true, if His Resurrection is true, then the Bible is true, which means the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true. Why not learn about the Plan of Salvation and receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.


Proof of Birth

[MontanaGuy]

I think a strong case can be made that Jesus did actually exist. There are other historical figures who interacted with Jesus such as Pontius Pilate who is known to have existed from sources other than the Bible. The main controvery over Jesus is whether or not he was the son of God and had supernatural abilities and rose from the dead. That's where people tend to have differing opinions, I don't think there's very many who believe he never existed.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

I think a strong case can be made that Jesus did actually exist. There are other historical figures who interacted with Jesus such as Pontius Pilate who is known to have existed from sources other than the Bible. The main controvery over Jesus is whether or not he was the son of God and had supernatural abilities and rose from the dead. That's where people tend to have differing opinions, I don't think there's very many who believe he never existed.

Man it's good to hear you say that. I think there's actually quite a few that doubt He ever existed. And I just appreciate this post a lot, montanaguy.

[Dolfan]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

I think a strong case can be made that Jesus did actually exist. There are other historical figures who interacted with Jesus such as Pontius Pilate who is known to have existed from sources other than the Bible. The main controvery over Jesus is whether or not he was the son of God and had supernatural abilities and rose from the dead. That's where people tend to have differing opinions, I don't think there's very many who believe he never existed.

A person who blazenly denies that Jesus ever existed would have to be either ignorant or dishonest. Whether or not you believe in His divinity is one thing but there is too much evidence not to believe that He lived.

There are 2 books on the subject that I would highly recommend.

1) The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell - He examines the various theories of the resurrection and offers evidence as to why the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ is the best one to fit the facts.

2) The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel - He builds a case to believe in Christ as the Messiah, including the trustworthiness of the Bible, His divinity and resurrection

Both authors, interestingly, were former agnostics. I found them both to be very informative, well written and thought provoking. They are excellent sources for anyone interested in learing more.

[ibcwife]

Originally Posted by Dolfan

A person who blazenly denies that Jesus ever existed would have to be either ignorant or dishonest. Whether or not you believe in His divinity is one thing but there is too much evidence not to believe that He lived.

There are 2 books on the subject that I would highly recommend.

1) The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell - He examines the various theories of the resurrection and offers evidence as to why the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ is the best one to fit the facts.

2) The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel - He builds a case to believe in Christ as the Messiah, including the trustworthiness of the Bible, His divinity and resurrection

Both authors, interestingly, were former agnostics. I found them both to be very informative, well written and thought provoking. They are excellent sources for anyone interested in learing more.

Thank you Dolfan for those references.. Lee Strobel's book A Case For Christ, is a awesome book that took Lee years to write. As a reporter for the Chicago Tribune he was very good about reasearching EVERYTHING down to the smallest detail. The reasoning behind the book was that his wife had become a Christian and he set out to prove the Christian faith was false as he himself was an atheist. So the book starts out with an atheistic view on things and you can see how Lee, after all of the research and interviews with many who were top in their field, finely comes to the conclusion that there must be something to this.. Montana, I have the book if you would like me to send it to you, pm me with your address and I get that out to you.

[ibcwife]

Phlegon-Gentile Historian

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
47Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!" 48Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
49The rest said, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him."
50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,
Mark 15: 33 Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
35Some of those who stood by, when they heard that, said, "Look, He is calling for Elijah!" 36Then someone ran and filled a sponge full of sour wine, put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink, saying, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to take Him down."
37And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.
38Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39So when the centurion, who stood opposite Him, saw that He cried out like this and breathed His last, he said, "Truly this Man was the Son of God!"



Luke 23: 44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, "into Your hands I commit My spirit."' Having said this, He breathed His last.
47So when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, "Certainly this was a righteous Man!"


"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...” Origen Against Celsus

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32).
References

There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.

LUKE 23: (44-46) Jesus dies on the cross.

Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.
a. There was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour: The remarkable darkness all over the earth showed the agony of creation itself in the Creator's suffering. "Origen (Contra Celsus, ii,33) and Eusebius (Chron.) quote words from Phlegon (a Roman historian) in which he makes mention of an extraordinary solar eclipse as well as of an earthquake about the time of the crucifixion." (Geldenhuys)

i. Phlegon, Roman historian wrote this: "In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was an extraordinary eclipse of the sun: at the sixth hour, the day turned into dark night, so that the stars in heaven were seen; and there was an earthquake." (Cited in Clarke)

ii. This is especially remarkable because during a full moon - which Passover was always held at - it was impossible that there be a natural eclipse of the sun.

b. The veil of the temple was torn in two: The tearing of the temple veil signified at least two things. First, now man has free access to the throne of grace by the cross. Second, no one should ever think again that God dwells in temples made with hands.

c. When Jesus cried out with a loud voice, John 19:30 tells us what He said: it is finished, which is one word in the Greek (tetelestai - "paid in full"). This is the cry of a winner, because Jesus had paid in full the debt of sin we owed, and had finished the eternal purpose of the cross.

i. At some point before He died, before the veil was torn in two, before He cried out it is finished, an awesome spiritual transaction took place. The Father set upon Jesus all the guilt and wrath our sin deserved, and He bore it in Himself perfectly, totally satisfying the wrath of God for us.

[ibcwife]

Question: "What was the significance of the temple veil being torn in two when Jesus died?"

Answer: During the lifetime time of Jesus, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish religious life. Here was the place that animal sacrifices were carried out, and worship according to the Law of Moses was commanded, and followed faithfully.

Hebrews 9:1-9 tells us that in the Temple a veil separated the Holy of Holies where God dwelt from the rest of the Temple where men dwelt. This signified that man was separated from God by sin (Isaiah 59:1-2). Only the High Priest was permitted to pass beyond this veil once each year (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7), enter into God's presence for all of Israel, and make atonement for their sins (Leviticus 16).

Solomon's Temple was 30 cubits high (1 Kings 6:2) but Herod had increased the height to 40 cubits according to the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. There is uncertainty as to exactly what a cubit equaled in our feet and inches but it is safe to assume that this veil was somewhere near 60 feet high. Josephus also tells us that the veil was four inches thick, and that horses tied to each side could not pull the veil apart. And the account in the Book of Exodus teaches that this thick veil was fashioned from blue, purple and scarlet material and fine twisted linen.

The size and thickness of the veil makes so much more momentous the events described as occurring at the exact moment of Jesus’ death upon a cross nearly 2000 years ago. “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom...” (Matthew 27:50-51a)

So what do we make of this? What significance does this rent-torn veil have for us today? Above all, the tearing of the veil at the moment of Jesus' death dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins forever. It now signified that the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and gentile.

When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a Temple made with hands (Acts 17:24). God was through with that Temple and its religious system and worship forever, and the Temple and Jerusalem was left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in 70 A.D. just as Jesus prophesied it would in Luke 13:35. As long as the Temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:8-9 indicates that the way to the sanctuary was not yet open “as long as the outer tent” still stood, being symbolic of “the present age.” The “present age” refers to the age that was passing away even as the New Covenant was being established (Hebrews 8:13).

In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ, Himself. Christ is the only way to the Father. (John 14:6) This is symbolized in the fact that the High Priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our more superior High Priest, and as believers in the finished work of Jesus we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies by Him. Hebrews 10:19-20 says that the faithful enter into the sanctuary by the “blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the veil, that is, through his flesh.”

The veil being rent from top to bottom is a fact of history. The profound significance of this event is explained in glorious detail in the Letter to the Hebrews. These things were shadows of things to come, and they all ultimately point us to Jesus Christ. He was the veil to the Holy of Holies, and through His death, the faithful now have free access to God.

The veil in the Temple was a constant reminder that sin renders humanity unfit for the presence of God. The fact that the sin offering was offered annually and countless other sacrifices repeated daily was meant to show graphically that sin could not truly and permanently be atoned for or erased by mere animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ, through His death, has removed the barriers between God and man, and now we may approach Him with confidence and boldness (Hebrews 4:14-16).

[saharapolitico]

Hi,

Interesting and informative thread you've got going here. A question for you: is there any historical evidence that the veil in the temple was indeed torn in two? Are there any extra-Biblical sources that describe the event? Also, are there any sources outside the Bible that depict the sudden onset of darkness in the region and the earthquake that followed Jesus' death?

I'm very fascinated by this topic but haven't been able to find satisfactory answers to this point.

Thanks.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by ibcwife

...........However, in this section on the Birth of Christ, we will cite sources that are outside of the Bible to prove that Jesus Christ was known to be a real person and not just a fable.

Oh dear! Not again.....Let's look at this 'outside evidence' for your man-god.

JOSEPHUS

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems. The T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"). The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages. The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era. The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century. The T.F is well accepted by historical scholars, both religious and secular, as a total forgery or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.


TACITUS

Written roughly 80 years after the alleged events, Tacitus allegedly wrote a famous passage about "Christ" - this passage also has several problems in that Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used. Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.) The passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time. So, this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a Jesus.

PLINY the Younger

About 80 years after the alleged events, Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events. So Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.

SUETONIUS

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos". Also, according to Suetonius, this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was. So, this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus. It's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.

IGNATIUS

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet it is not clear if he really existed. His story is suspicious, his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions, It is probable that his letters were later forgeries and he mentions only a tiny few items about a Jesus. Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about a Jesus.

THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant. What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But, there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. So Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

PHLEGON

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So, Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all - merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

VALENTINUS

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So, Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

POLYCARP

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So, Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.

LUCIAN

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but this was several generations later. Lucian does NOT even mention a Jesus or a Christ by name. So Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.

GALEN

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to 'Christians'.

TALMUD

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be unfriendly Jewish responses to Christian claims. The references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for this Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.) So the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.

MARA BAR SERAPION
A fragment of his work includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates. It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.

In all the above, everything that was written...or alleged to have been written came between 60 - 200 years after the alleged events. There is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence whatsoever to support a Jesus of Nazareth having existed. There wasn't even a 'town' called Nazareth until 2nd or 3rd century CE.

The "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of JC, we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief (forged) mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work. Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artefacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and JC comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to JC if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity."

There is no definitive evidence of a specific Jesus of Nazareth who preached and was crucified by the Romans.

What does one accept as evidence? Most historical figures are based on their accounts by contemporaries. The best hearsay evidence is that which is recorded by the man/woman's own people, and recorded by other people including enemies who have nothing to gain. The existence of Julius Caesar is quite reliable in that he left writings. His death led to a Roman Civil War with battles recorded. Julius was known by the Gauls, the Greeks, and the Egyptians.

The same applies to Octavian, Nero, Constantine, and Theodosius. Cyrus and Xerxes of Persia were well documented by Persian and Greek historians.

Jesus has a weaker case in that he left no writings. His only accounts claiming to know him were the Gospels which were by those who wanted to believe in him. Logically one can never prove Jesus didn't exist. But the Roman historians only mention that there were people who believed in a Jesus. The Romans meticulously recorded the execution of rebel leaders, insurrectionists, rival Emperors, rebellious native kings, or over-ambitious generals. They spread the news of such executions to serve as warnings to would be rebels or royal claimants. Examples were made of Vercingetorix of the Gauls, Boadica of the Icenii, Antonius and Cleopatra, Pompeii, and Queen Zenobia of Syria.

We should question why the Romans did not make Jesus into another "dead rebel" example. Yet they fail to even mention it in official records. All of this makes the existence of a human Jesus at the very best "controversial."

The divinity mythology is clearly myth, it seems to have been copied from perhaps a dozen older virgin born god-men redeemers who died and resurrected. It is interesting that those who made Jesus into a god were not the Jews who were around him, but pagan Romans and Greeks who, not surprisingly, used the traditional god-man redeemer story applied to him.

If Jesus actually healed lots of people, why did he do it? If he did it because he cared about them, why did he only heal a very small fraction of the sick people in the world? If he did it in order to demonstrate his power, why did he restrict demonstrating his power to a very small geographic region in the world? If you rose from the dead, and wanted people to know that you rose from the dead, you would not limit your appearances to just a few people in one small geographic region in the world. There do not seem to be sensible motives for many of the things that JC did, which suggest that he did not do many of the things that the New Testament attributes to him.

The case is weak because no one living and writing in the early to mid-first century ever seems to have heard of him.

We are left with a pile of self-serving religious documents which could easily have been tampered with throughout the years.

Philo of Alexandria wrote to Gaius Caligula, c. 40 CE, in which he spent a whole paragraph complaining what a miserable prat Pontius Pilate had been. In the course of that denunciation he never mentions that Pilate may have killed someone who "multitudes" hailed as the Messiah. Even more amazingly, he never mentions that the man that Pilate killed supposedly "came back to life" which would seem to be a pretty clear indication that "god or the gods" were not happy with Pilate's action.

Yet....not a word. Clearly, the story of Jesus had not been invented in 40 CE!!

Sorry for the long post and I apologise to the 'regulars' here, who must have read the same stuff from me a half dozen times by now....but the 'truth' needs to be told dudes.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by Dolfan

A person who blazenly denies that Jesus ever existed would have to be either ignorant or dishonest. Whether or not you believe in His divinity is one thing but there is too much evidence not to believe that He lived.

I agree with you, Dolfan.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Clearly, the story of Jesus had not been invented in 40 CE!!