Proof of the "historical" Jesus...

by simwitness 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  seedy3

  I looked at this link that Valis posted http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

  The only provable historian to have written these things that mention Jesus, "the Christ" is that of Josephus. Although there are 2 references to him in his writings, only one is thought to have been done by him, that being the first bold in the following quote from the websight:
  

  Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.

  There is an interesting rebutal to this ideal, that Josephus was confirming the existance of Jesus and can be found at
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

  Jeff Lowder goes through all the arguements presented for each reference presented on the previous websight and presents an interesting counter to them.

  Seedy
• 

  simwitness

  Valis: Thanks for the links. I am actually not looking for "answers" or to form an opinion.

  My point for the post:

  To start a conversation based on the "other" aspect of christianity. There have been numerous posts recently debvating the biblical nature of Jesus, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the historical nature. Since, as I pointed out before, it was what made Christianity the "real" religion, our prophet was resurected, there's was not.

  The "Josephus" writings are what was pointed to as "proof" to me many years ago, but I could not remember the actual references until now.

  Kennesen:
  

  For those who do not believe in Jesus, no amount
  of proof will convince you, and for those who believe, no proof
  is necessary.

  I simply do not agree with this statement.

  a) Thomas did not "believe" until it was proved to him that it was Jesus.
  b) Those that already believe, extra "proof" never hurts, in fact it often helps (see above).

  ...
• 

  Kenneson

  Simwitness,
  All those "proofs" from extrabiblical sources that you mention like Josephus (and others you don't mention like Suetonus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc.) are
  certainly not believed by skeptics. Maybe skeptics are the "doubting
  Thomases," who have "to see in order to believe." But Josephus won't convince them. I believe in Jesus, but I can't "prove" him to anyone. And I believed in him long before I ever heard of Josephus.
• 

  Double Edge

  I mean, it's not like we don't have any kind of record about what when on in this part of the world during this period of time. We do, and someone running around raising the dead and starting a new religion surely would have gotten front page news SOMEWHERE.

  Maybe it was a busy newsday and the reporters were covering other stories...or, maybe it got reported, but "buried" (excuse the pun) in the "Lifestyles" section, or maybe it was frontpage news, but all the records were in the Great Library of Alexandria when it caught fire and burned, along with a lot of civilization's histories and discoveries...that in itself is a fact.
• 

  seedy3

  Hey Kenneson:

  Actually there are many records that the Christians try to use to prove that Jesus existed, the faulter of most of them except for Josephus, and Tacitus, is that they only mention the Christian movement, not the man.

  Tacitus, is very suspect as to the references he used to write the statment that he wrote.

  Josephus, has 2 statments refering to Jesus, one of them is plainly not even his writing, the other is again more a reference to the movement and not a confirmation of Jesus' existance.

  I really recomend this sight for the skeptical and the beleiver:
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

  Seedy
• 

  seedy3

  another site that has a very extensive study on the historical Jesus is this one:
  http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/jesusx.html

  It has a pro-con approch, and is not the opnion of the websites author but is a collection of many scholars, historians, archeologists, and anthropologists, I'm not sure if the link will work, becasue it is a pay sight. If it does not, let me know and I will psot some of the info here.

  Seedy
• 

  Xander

  I think that's my biggest problem with the 'historical' evidence christians come up with. In several cases, it is very, VERY obviously tampered with.

  And, even if it wasn't, they still aren't contemporary accounts. Josephus made his writings decades after 'Jesus' had supposedly come and gone. His records are based on, at best, second hand tales.

  Again, I find it hard to believe someone who raised the dead, started a religious movement, performed miracle after miracle after miracle such that pretty much every Jew in Jerusalem wanted him dead, managed to completely not be mentioned in contemporary accounts.

  Xander F
  (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America - Ohio order)

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  Kenneson

  Seedy3 writes: "Actually there are many records that the Christians try to use to prove that Jesus existed..."

  And a lot of good it does! The two sites you posted confirm that. Obviously written to disprove the "proofs," to raise questions and doubts.
  But thank God my faith in Jesus is not based on the pros and cons of historical records.
  I don't have to prove the "historical" Jesus. I know He lives now.
  Have you experienced Him? Only then can you know, that you know,
  that you know...that He exists.
• 

  Double Edge

  Again, I find it hard to believe someone who raised the dead, started a religious movement, performed miracle after miracle after miracle such that pretty much every Jew in Jerusalem wanted him dead, managed to completely not be mentioned in contemporary accounts.

  I find it hard to believe that some people would believe that a religion with over one billion adherents and continues 2000 years after it's inception was started by a non-existant person.

  For whatever reason, as far as having a lack of 'physical' or 'historical' proof beyond the scriptures, the FACT is millions of people have a belief in Jesus while millions of others have an abiding FAITH in Jesus as The Messiah... meaning a exchange that goes beyond the cerebral notion ... an 'experience' if you will. And for those that haven't experienced that, nothing less than a cerified copy of a birth certificate from the Roman state (with pictures) will ever convience them otherwise. This debate will rage on until The Second Coming, or the utterdarkness of death. However, only one arguement will be provable at that time.

  Have you experienced Him? Only then can you know, that you know,
  that you know...that He exists.

  I'll drink to that...IN SPADES!
• 

  Xenu

  Proof of Yeshua is in the hearts of those that open the way for him. The Holy Saints of G-D knew that the Yeshua was here. Elohim provided a source of love. Love that is proof for those that know.