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.
She's probably over in the Xian forum at this moment telling all the adoring acolytes about how little atheists know about the Bible!
It is self-explanatory that if the village of Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus, then it had to come into existence before his birth. For the Christian tradition, then, scripture all but requires that Nazareth was already in existence in Hellenistic times, the age that preceded the Roman conquest of 63 BCE. One epoch depends on the other: the existence of a viable village at the turn of the era (one with a synagogue and crowd that could accompany Jesus, Lk 4:16-30) depends on it being in existence already in Hellenistic times.
HEGESIPPUS (110 A.D. - 180 A.D.) Hegesippus converted to Christianity from Judaism after extensively
researching the Gospel story for himself. Instead of accepting the Gospel story at the word of others, he
travelled extensively throughout Rome and Corinth in an effort to collect evidence of the early Christian claims.
Hegesippus provides important testimony that the stories being passed around were not watered down,
embellished, or fabricated"
Yes, Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical man. No, he was not a theological construct. There are enough historical witnesses to verify this as fact. Lee Strobel did a great job answering this question in his book The Case for Christ. with convincing evidence on this subject and educational research.
Yes, Jesus was a real, HISTORICAL person. Read Josephus, the historian and orthodox Jew who speaks of Jesus. 4th Century monks can be thanked for our writings from Josephus. He was real. Even if you don't believe He was the Son of God, there are established histories that place Him there at the time.
After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopedia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus."
Sarah
btw, I type in bold to see better
Sarah, if you are interested in discussing this, it would help if you could summarize some of Strobel's arguments. I sold my copy of "The case for Christ" several years ago, so I can't reference them directly.
I can summarize my view of the historicity of Jesus for you, if that would help.
First, we have no first hand accounts of Jesus's existence outside of the Bible. No government records, no entry on a census, no reports of a troublemaking Jew in Judea. We do have records like Josephus and others but they were all written well after the fact, and were second hand at best. So there is not much that can be verified extra-biblically other than the existence of the Christian religion itself.
Second we have the problem of the bible itself. At this point, it is widely accepted among biblical scholars ( not necessarily theologians, but there is a distinction between the two fields of study) that the authors of the gospels were probably not the men that tradition claims. In other words the gospels authors were probably not apostles, so most of the gospels would have to be at least second hand information. We also have evidence that they have been edited and revised over time, and that there may have been multiple authors over a period of time. In short, they are unreliable at best as far as establishing historicity. A good resource on this would be Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".
So at this point we are really down to the basis for Jesus existence being a collection of stories that were orally passed around the middle east and written down by people who had no first hand knowledge and the fact that contemporary people believed in Jesus (the early Christians). As I pointed out to Mickiel, if we take the existence of the early chiurch as proof of thebiblical Jesus, then we are likewise logically obliged to accept other claims as well.
I personally tend to believe that there was a person who was the basis for the biblical Jesus, but the evidence is fairly thin. What makes sense to me is that there was an apocalyptic Jewish teacher who was killed, and a religion developed out of that. It seems clear when you examine the new testament critically that later Christians, specifically Paul, dramatically reinterpreted what Jesus taught and essentially invented Christianity in its current form (as opposed to an end of the world approach to Judaism).
There is another Bart Ehrman book that should be out this year in which he makes the case that there was a historic Jesus, as opposed to the idea that he was wholly mythological. Might be an interesting read.
Sarah, if you are interested in discussing this, it would help if you could summarize some of Strobel's arguments. I sold my copy of "The case for Christ" several years ago, so I can't reference them directly.
I can summarize my view of the historicity of Jesus for you, if that would help.
First, we have no first hand accounts of Jesus's existence outside of the Bible. No government records, no entry on a census, no reports of a troublemaking Jew in Judea. We do have records like Josephus and others but they were all written well after the fact, and were second hand at best. So there is not much that can be verified extra-biblically other than the existence of the Christian religion itself.
Second we have the problem of the bible itself. At this point, it is widely accepted among biblical scholars ( not necessarily theologians, but there is a distinction between the two fields of study) that the authors of the gospels were probably not the men that tradition claims. In other words the gospels authors were probably not apostles, so most of the gospels would have to be at least second hand information. We also have evidence that they have been edited and revised over time, and that there may have been multiple authors over a period of time. In short, they are unreliable at best as far as establishing historicity. A good resource on this would be Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".
So at this point we are really down to the basis for Jesus existence being a collection of stories that were orally passed around the middle east and written down by people who had no first hand knowledge and the fact that contemporary people believed in Jesus (the early Christians). As I pointed out to Mickiel, if we take the existence of the early chiurch as proof of thebiblical Jesus, then we are likewise logically obliged to accept other claims as well.
I personally tend to believe that there was a person who was the basis for the biblical Jesus, but the evidence is fairly thin. What makes sense to me is that there was an apocalyptic Jewish teacher who was killed, and a religion developed out of that. It seems clear when you examine the new testament critically that later Christians, specifically Paul, dramatically reinterpreted what Jesus taught and essentially invented Christianity in its current form (as opposed to an end of the world approach to Judaism).
There is another Bart Ehrman book that should be out this year in which he makes the case that there was a historic Jesus, as opposed to the idea that he was wholly mythological. Might be an interesting read.
NoCapo
Historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
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. . . .{5}
Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
It is self-explanatory that if the village of Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus, then it had to come into existence before his birth. For the Christian tradition, then, scripture all but requires that Nazareth was already in existence in Hellenistic times, the age that preceded the Roman conquest of 63 BCE. One epoch depends on the other: the existence of a viable village at the turn of the era (one with a synagogue and crowd that could accompany Jesus, Lk 4:16-30) depends on it being in existence already in Hellenistic times.
Sarah
Your argument only works if we assume that scripture cannot be wrong. If, as the archaeology seems to indicate, Nazareth was a town that did not exist during the time of Jesus, then it would indicate that it was added to the story later, since it did exist when the scriptures were being written.
...Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
Sarah
Right, Tacitus is recording what he has heard. He is not an eyewitness to any of this, there are no extant documents confirming this. It is certainly confirmation that Christians existed, and that there was a story about how the religion came to be, but it doesn't confirm anything about the details or even the existence of Jesus.
I do want to point out that I am not arguing the Jesus didn't exist. I think it likely he did. I also think it likely that he was not much like the Jesus portrayed in Christian theology.
Historical sources will show that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of both history and prophecy. " The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? historian F. F. Bruce wrote, "The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar."
President Abraham Lincoln was an agnostic until he reached the age of forty. Then he read Dr. James Smith's brilliant examination called The Christian's Defence, that established the historical reality of the events in Christ's life. The evidence from this book convinced Lincoln of the truth about Jesus, and he became a genuine Christian. "My doubts scattered to the winds and my reason became convinced by the arguments in support of the inspired and infallible authority of the Old and New Testaments."
Yes, Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical man. No, he was not a theological construct. There are enough historical witnesses to verify this as fact.
Then who are these witnesses? Wait! Let me guess.
Josephus
Suetonius
Lucian
....am I gettin' warm?
Thallus
Tacitus
Mara bar Sarapian
Pliny
Ignatius
Phlegon
....all been debunked to death girl. Not evidence for your man-god at all. You'll need to come up with better than that if you want to appear convincing.
Quote:
Lee Strobel did a great job answering this question in his book The Case for Christ. with convincing evidence on this subject and educational research.
Oh please!! Do me a favour will ya!!! 'Lee Strobel', the self styled 'investigative journalist' who in his nonsense called 'The Case for Christ' breaks the cardinal rule for investigative journalism....he only gives one side of the story!
Quote:
Yes, Jesus was a real, HISTORICAL person. Read Josephus, the historian and orthodox Jew who speaks of Jesus.
I KNEW IT!!! Old Joe get's wheeled out yet again. These fundies just haven't got a clue when it comes to 'evidence'...just grab whatever they can from their apologist web-sites without even bothering to do ANY research on what they are grabbing. Ignorance is a curse Sarah. Do you realise that Josephus also mentions Hercules? In fact, he mentions Hercules far more times than he (allegedly) mentions Jesus. Are you prepared to state that Hercules was a real character in history...because he is mentioned by Josephus? If not, why not?
Quote:
He was real. Even if you don't believe He was the Son of God, there are established histories that place Him there at the time.
Well now you are moving the goal posts. Which 'Jesus' are we discussing here Sarah...BibleJesus, son of a god and miracle man or Yeshua ben Yosef, itinerant rebel rabbi. You can't argue for the two. Which one are you attempting to establish the existence of??
Quote:
After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopedia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus."
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!!!! Please keep away from places like 'Answers in Genesis' and the 'Creation Institute' for your information.
Now listen....second century historians did not mention your Jesus, they mentioned 'Christians'. That 'Christians' existed in the first and second centuries is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is whether or not the hero they claimed to follow was the son of a god.
As for your sources, you really need to do some studying on the subject rather than just lapping up what your pastor or dubious 'Lying for Jesus' websites are telling you. The 'mention' of Jesus by Josephus is accepted, by both sides of the argument, as a later Christian forgery. Tacitus likewise as there are some mistakes in the Tacitus passage that a Roman Imperial historian, such as Tacitus was, would not have made.
There are no other 1st or second century historians ANYWHERE, whether they be Roman, Greek, Jewish...whatever...that mention your Jesus. Some mention Christians and relate the stories concerning a 'man-god' that were circulating amongst Christians at the time. Neither did they mention Herod calling for firstborn males to be killed. Neither do they mention any Roman census at this time. Neither do they mention any miracles performed by a "Jesus". Neither do they mention all these dead priests coming back to life and wandering the streets of Jerusalem when Jesus died.
Most importantly, there is not one single contemporaneous mention of your man-god Jesus, NOT ONE! Do you not find it odd that for three years this Jesus travelled the countryside visiting city, town and village, preaching to crowds so vast that people were trampled in the rush to hear him, that he performed miracles the like of which had not been see before or since yet...apart from the 4 gospel writers...
... not one single, solitary historian, official, towns person, soldier, sailor, tinker, tailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man or thief bothered to write ANYTHING down about this astonishing man-god, the like of which the world had never seen before?? Hell...even his own alleged followers didn't write a thing about it until decades after the alleged events.
Either your Jesus The Christ was a divinity who chose to dazzle multitudes but leave no trace, who contrived to influence – not the whole world as we should expect – but a mere handful of shadowy devotees in a desolate backwater of the Roman Empire, whose successors rapidly split into numerous warring factions; or your Jesus The Christ is the fabrication of human minds, a construct betrayed at every turn by contradiction and omission. I know which one I chose.
Right, Tacitus is recording what he has heard. He is not an eyewitness to any of this, there are no extant documents confirming this. It is certainly confirmation that Christians existed, and that there was a story about how the religion came to be, but it doesn't confirm anything about the details or even the existence of Jesus.
I do want to point out that I am not arguing the Jesus didn't exist. I think it likely he did. I also think it likely that he was not much like the Jesus portrayed in Christian theology.
-NoCapo
Christ's crucifixion occurred about 2000 years ago. This is documented by Roman, Jewish, and Greek historians. However, the Quran denies the crucifixion occurred. The Quran goes against known, recorded history. This article discusses Christ's historical crucifixion.
Christianity teaches that Jesus was crucified. All four Gospels record the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. But Muhammad and the Quran say that Christ was not crucified. Muhammad appeared on the scene about 600 years after Jesus. Muhammad claimed to receive 'revelations' from Allah, given to him through Gabriel. One of Muhammad's revelations was that Jesus was not crucified.
The Quran, chapter 4:157 says:
"They declared 'We have put to death the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the apostle of God'. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they had only his likeness."
In other words, someone other than Jesus was crucified. The majority of Muslims believe this substitutionary theory.????
Yet the evidence from both the New Testament, and other historical sources state that Christ was crucified.
Then who are these witnesses? Wait! Let me guess.
Josephus
Suetonius
Lucian
....am I gettin' warm?
Thallus
Tacitus
Mara bar Sarapian
Pliny
Ignatius
Phlegon
....all been debunked to death girl. Not evidence for your man-god at all. You'll need to come up with better than that if you want to appear convincing.
Oh please!! Do me a favour will ya!!! 'Lee Strobel', the self styled 'investigative journalist' who in his nonsense called 'The Case for Christ' breaks the cardinal rule for investigative journalism....he only gives one side of the story!
I KNEW IT!!! Old Joe get's wheeled out yet again. These fundies just haven't got a clue when it comes to 'evidence'...just grab whatever they can from their apologist web-sites without even bothering to do ANY research on what they are grabbing. Ignorance is a curse Sarah. Do you realise that Josephus also mentions Hercules? In fact, he mentions Hercules far more times than he (allegedly) mentions Jesus. Are you prepared to state that Hercules was a real character in history...because he is mentioned by Josephus? If not, why not?
Well now you are moving the goal posts. Which 'Jesus' are we discussing here Sarah...BibleJesus, son of a god and miracle man or Yeshua ben Yosef, itinerant rebel rabbi. You can't argue for the two. Which one are you attempting to establish the existence of??
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!!!! Please keep away from places like 'Answers in Genesis' and the 'Creation Institute' for your information.
Now listen....second century historians did not mention your Jesus, they mentioned 'Christians'. That 'Christians' existed is not in the first and second centuries is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is whether or not the hero they claimed to follow was the son of a god.
As for your sources, you really need to do some studying on the subject rather than just lapping up what your pastor or dubious 'Lying for Jesus' websites are telling you. The 'mention' of Jesus by Josephus is accepted, by both sides of the argument, as a later Christian forgery. Tacitus likewise as there are some mistakes in the Tacitus passage that a Roman Imperial historian, such as Tacitus was, would not have made.
There are no other 1st or second century historians ANYWHERE, whether they be Roman, Greek, Jewish...whatever...that mention your Jesus. Some mention Christians and relate the stories concerning a 'man-god' that were circulating amongst Christians at the time. Neither did they mention Herod calling for firstborn males to be killed. Neither do they mention any Roman census at this time. Neither do they mention any miracles performed by a "Jesus". Neither do they mention all these dead priests coming back to life and wandering the streets of Jerusalem when Jesus died.
Most importantly, there is not one single contemporaneous mention of your man-god Jesus, NOT ONE! Do you not find it odd that for three years this Jesus travelled the countryside visiting city, town and village, preaching to crowds so vast that people were trampled in the rush to hear him, that he performed miracles the like of which had not been see before or since yet...apart from the 4 gospel writers...
... not one single, solitary historian, official, towns person, soldier, sailor, tinker, tailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man or thief bothered to write ANYTHING down about this astonishing man-god, the like of which the world had never seen before?? Hell...even his own alleged followers didn't write a thing about it until decades after the alleged events.
Either your Jesus The Christ was a divinity who chose to dazzle multitudes but leave no trace, who contrived to influence – not the whole world as we should expect – but a mere handful of shadowy devotees in a desolate backwater of the Roman Empire, whose successors rapidly split into numerous warring factions; or your Jesus The Christ is the fabrication of human minds, a construct betrayed at every turn by contradiction and omission. I know which one I chose.
Have you considered glasses ...'Nazareth girl'!
Hello,
Christ's crucifixion occurred about 2000 years ago. This is documented by Roman, Jewish, and Greek historians. However, the Quran denies the crucifixion occurred. The Quran goes against known, recorded history. This article discusses Christ's historical crucifixion.
Christianity teaches that Jesus was crucified. All four Gospels record the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. But Muhammad and the Quran say that Christ was not crucified. Muhammad appeared on the scene about 600 years after Jesus. Muhammad claimed to receive 'revelations' from Allah, given to him through Gabriel. One of Muhammad's revelations was that Jesus was not crucified.
The Quran, chapter 4:157 says:
"They declared 'We have put to death the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the apostle of God'. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they had only his likeness."
In other words, someone other than Jesus was crucified. The majority of Muslims believe this substitutionary theory.
Yet the evidence from both the New Testament, and other historical sources state that Christ was crucified.
I have glasses, however only reading glasses.
Sarah
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.
