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.
Historical Jesus:
Many people today question whether there was indeed a historical Jesus. They question this because they say there is no evidence outside of the New Testament that Jesus ever lived. Because they believe this they believe Jesus is nothing more than a myth made up by Christians to support the Christian belief. Whether one believe Jesus was the son of God is not the issue, the issue is are there historical record of a man named Jesus.
However; there are historical accounts made by Roman historians that Jesus did indeed live during the time spoken of in the New Testament. Let’s explore some of these historical documents.
On the birth of Jesus:
The Jews at the time of Jesus birth held the belief that their Messiah would come and become the governor of the earth. This belief was not only recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus but was also recorded by two Roman historians.
Josephus37AD-100AD Jewish historian states:
“the Jews had the belief that about that time one from their country should become governor of the established earth”.
Suetonius 70 AD-130 AD Roman historian states:
“there had spread over all the orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world’.
Cornelius Tacitus 56 AD-117 AD Roman historian and senator states:
“There was a firm persuasion that at this very time the east was to grow powerful and rulers coming from Judea were to acquire universal empire”.
So we can see by these three historians that the Jews expected their Messiah around the time that Jesus was born. However that still leaves the question is there any historical evidence that Jesus was ever born? Let’s look again at the same three historians.
Josephus states:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:
Suetonius states: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Cornelius Tacitus states:
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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
All three historians, one Jewish and two Roman, agree that there was indeed a historical person named Christ. They agree that at around the time of Jesus birth that the Jewish nation held to the belief that their great governor, the Messiah of their hopes, was about to come. They all agree there was a man named Christ, and Cornelius Tacitus goes even farther than mentioning the person of Christ he tells us of the extreme penalty this Christ suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilatus.
Some however will continue to question the historical Jesus; they do so contrary to the historical records. They cry for historical evidence outside of the New Testament and when that evidence is given they refuse to believe it. They continue to believe Jesus is nothing more than a myth perpetrated upon the world by Christians. A myth they must believe historians would put in a historical record, thus in my opinion showing how little they think of the field of the historian. This is ironic as they cry for historical records, then call those records nothing more than a myth. Why oh why would a Roman historian record as fact a Christian myth?
Historical Jesus:
Many people today question whether there was indeed a historical Jesus. They question this because they say there is no evidence outside of the New Testament that Jesus ever lived. Because they believe this they believe Jesus is nothing more than a myth made up by Christians to support the Christian belief. Whether one believe Jesus was the son of God is not the issue, the issue is are there historical record of a man named Jesus.
However; there are historical accounts made by Roman historians that Jesus did indeed live during the time spoken of in the New Testament. Let’s explore some of these historical documents.
On the birth of Jesus:
The Jews at the time of Jesus birth held the belief that their Messiah would come and become the governor of the earth. This belief was not only recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus but was also recorded by two Roman historians.
Josephus37AD-100AD Jewish historian states:
“the Jews had the belief that about that time one from their country should become governor of the established earth”.
Suetonius 70 AD-130 AD Roman historian states:
“there had spread over all the orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world’.
Cornelius Tacitus 56 AD-117 AD Roman historian and senator states:
“There was a firm persuasion that at this very time the east was to grow powerful and rulers coming from Judea were to acquire universal empire”.
So we can see by these three historians that the Jews expected their Messiah around the time that Jesus was born. However that still leaves the question is there any historical evidence that Jesus was ever born? Let’s look again at the same three historians.
Josephus states:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:
Suetonius states: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Cornelius Tacitus states:
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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
All three historians, one Jewish and two Roman, agree that there was indeed a historical person named Christ. They agree that at around the time of Jesus birth that the Jewish nation held to the belief that their great governor, the Messiah of their hopes, was about to come. They all agree there was a man named Christ, and Cornelius Tacitus goes even farther than mentioning the person of Christ he tells us of the extreme penalty this Christ suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilatus.
Some however will continue to question the historical Jesus; they do so contrary to the historical records. They cry for historical evidence outside of the New Testament and when that evidence is given they refuse to believe it. They continue to believe Jesus is nothing more than a myth perpetrated upon the world by Christians. A myth they must believe historians would put in a historical record, thus in my opinion showing how little they think of the field of the historian. This is ironic as they cry for historical records, then call those records nothing more than a myth. Why oh why would a Roman historian record as fact a Christian myth?
I've bolded the problem with your premise. "Contrary to historical records" is a total misnomer bordering on deception and you either know this or should know this.
There isn't a single secular historian contemporary with Jesus or within 50 years of his death that mentions him even once---contrary to all the marvelous miraculous deeds he did and the supernatural events that supposedly happened at his death. Someone---ANYONE---would have gotten word of all this back to at least one of the 300-odd noted secular historians of Jesus' time and yet the historical record screams with silence. That in itself is proof enough that Jesus either didn't exist or at most was a failed apocalyptic prophet who had a few followers and then was crucified and died and his followers began telling stories about him.
The individuals you named all wrote more than a half century to a century after Jesus' death and were no more a reliable witness to his miracles than anyone today who believes in him.
There isn't a single secular historian contemporary with Jesus or within 50 years of his death that mentions him even once---contrary to all the marvelous miraculous deeds he did and the supernatural events that supposedly happened at his death. Someone---ANYONE---would have gotten word of all this back to at least one of the 300-odd noted secular historians of Jesus' time and yet the historical record screams with silence. That in itself is proof enough that Jesus either didn't exist or at most was a failed apocalyptic prophet who had a few followers and then was crucified and died and his followers began telling stories about him.
I am so tired of this utterly ignorant misunderstanding of ancient writings. There is no such thing as "only religious ancient writings" and other legitimate historical writings!!. That is so bogus. ALL ancient writings of the time are legitimate sources of the times. The fact that a religion absconded with some and called them their canon or Bible does NOT change their historical value or legitimacy.That is pure secularist and atheist BS!!!! Get a clue, thrill.
I've bolded the problem with your premise. "Contrary to historical records" is a total misnomer bordering on deception and you either know this or should know this.
There isn't a single secular historian contemporary with Jesus or within 50 years of his death that mentions him even once---contrary to all the marvelous miraculous deeds he did and the supernatural events that supposedly happened at his death. Someone---ANYONE---would have gotten word of all this back to at least one of the 300-odd noted secular historians of Jesus' time and yet the historical record screams with silence. That in itself is proof enough that Jesus either didn't exist or at most was a failed apocalyptic prophet who had a few followers and then was crucified and died and his followers began telling stories about him.
The individuals you named all wrote more than a half century to a century after Jesus' death and were no more a reliable witness to his miracles than anyone today who believes in him.
You are free to believe as you will thrill, but the historical records are against you.
I am so tired of this utterly ignorant misunderstanding of ancient writings. There is no such thing as "only religious ancient writings" and other legitimate historical writings!!. That is so bogus. ALL ancient writings of the time are legitimate sources of the times. The fact that a religion absconded with some and called them their canon or Bible does NOT change their historical value or legitimacy.That is pure secularist and atheist BS!!!! Get a clue, thrill.
Correct brother, the New Testament records of Jesus are historical, each record was it own until someone put them into a book and called it a bible.
Lets suppose someone took all the records of Caesar Augustus and put them in one book there would be no records of Caesar outside of that book that stated he ever lived. And if we all followed thrills method of reasoning that would mean Caesar never existed.
However as I showed there are historical records outside of the New Testament that show a historical Jesus. And these were made by a Jew and 2 romans, neither of which would ever admit to there being a Jesus who was called Christ if he did not exist.
So whether Chrestus from the works of Suetonius and Cornelius Tacitus , which sound like the gospel record as ``Pontius Pilatus gave the extreme penalty to Chrestus who had not so much as a crime or an innocent man `` ........... Like here is a record of Pontius Pilatus , where is there any record he existed ...............Then Josephus record of Sanhedrin judges executing the brother of Jesus who is called James which was recorded in antiquity ..................So historical Jesus Christ or not Christians who have received the Holy spirit of God have the solid proof of the existence of Jesus and it proves that the gift of God was given a Pentecost like the book of Acts 2 and God is still giving the gift of His spirit today to only those who obey and love the Lord God
I am so tired of this utterly ignorant misunderstanding of ancient writings. There is no such thing as "only religious ancient writings" and other legitimate historical writings!!. That is so bogus. ALL ancient writings of the time are legitimate sources of the times. The fact that a religion absconded with some and called them their canon or Bible does NOT change their historical value or legitimacy.That is pure secularist and atheist BS!!!! Get a clue, thrill.
I know. The skeptics say "give me proof, but you can't use the eyewitness accounts collected in the NT". That is like inviting someone to participate in a boxing match and saying fight me, but you can't use your fists.
I know. The skeptics say "give me proof, but you can't use the eyewitness accounts collected in the NT". That is like inviting someone to participate in a boxing match and saying fight me, but you can't use your fists.
The problem is that the men who wrote the current version of the NT bible were in no way "eye-witnesses." Experts say, even if we had originals, they were written some 100-200 years AFTER the death of Christ.
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.
