Historical evidence?

[b***@gmail.com]

Is there any contemporaneous historical evidence that a person named
Jesus in the books entitled "New Testament" existed?

We have mountains of evidence that Socrates (469 BC=96399 BC) existed
but zero evidence that Jesus existed.

Can anyone come forward with a non-Biblical fact that Jesus was an
historical person and not a myth?

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Is there any contemporaneous historical evidence that a person named
Jesus in the books entitled "New Testament" existed?
We have mountains of evidence that Socrates (469 BC=96399 BC) existed
but zero evidence that Jesus existed.

The problem is that you're asking us to prove something after
excluding all of the evidence. I'm not an expert on Socrates, so my
comments are based on Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. As you may know, there are similar issues with Socrates.
Because we don't have any writings from him, we're dependent upon two
followers and Aristophanes, none of whom had the same interests as a
modern historian. This is actually fewer sources than from Jesus, and
no less biased. This leaves us with a "Socratic problem" that seems at
least as serious as the problem of the historical Jesus. Since
Aristophanes seems to be using Socrates as a representative
philosopher as much as an individual, I think you could make as good a
case that Socrates is a fictional (or fictionalized) "typical
philosopher" as the mythicist case about Jesus (not that I think
either case is persuasive).

Unfortunately from this period of time we can't find things like birth
certificates, which we'd expect from today.

There are references from outside the New Testament, but I'm not sure
how much they show, because we can't be sure whether they are based on
direct knowledge or information from Christians. However the same is
probably true of Aristophanes. Can we really show that his references
to Socrates are based on more direct evidence than Tacitus' reference
to Jesus, and the likely reference in the Talmud?

[news]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
excluding all of the evidence. I'm not an expert on Socrates, so my
comments are based on Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of

B - Oh dear. Be careful about putting trust in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has
been known for allowing all kinds of erroneous "facts" getting into it.
I trust Wikipedia about as much as I can toss my computer with my little
finger...in otherwords..not much.

Bren

---

[That's why I checked it against the Stanford Encyclopedia. --clh]

[Steve Hayes]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Is there any contemporaneous historical evidence that a person named
Jesus in the books entitled "New Testament" existed?
We have mountains of evidence that Socrates (469 BC=96399 BC) existed
but zero evidence that Jesus existed.

What are these "mountains"?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Is there any contemporaneous historical evidence that a person named
Jesus in the books entitled "New Testament" existed?

Obviously you discount the NT record which has been scrutinized
more than any other book in history. The gospels portray Jesus
as one would expect from different witnesses of the same event
or happening. How many lawyers, university profs, men of high
intellectual pedigree set out to debunk the NT record only to come
full circle and admits its viability?

There is also the Jewish historian Josephus, which I am shocked
no one mentioned in this thread. Not only does he mention Jesus
but also His brother, James.

Post by b***@gmail.com
We have mountains of evidence that Socrates (469 BC=3D96399 BC) existed
but zero evidence that Jesus existed.

"mountains"? I think you need to do your home work. You obviously
have never honestly pursued this to any great depth.

"zero" only illustrates your prejudice.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Can anyone come forward with a non-Biblical fact that Jesus was an
historical person and not a myth?

How about God Himself? Would you accept His witness or
are you so indoctrinated in humanism that such a witness is
out of the question. The Holy Spirit has personally given
testimony not only to Jesus being the Messiah, but also being
God incarnate and that the Scriptures are His revelation to
men in this life of faith. Like all too many, you have a poor
appreciation of the distinctions involved between a consent
of the will and that of faith. You live your entire life, day after
day, moment by moment, on faith. You drive 70MPH down
the road with only a paint stripe on the pavement keeping that
on coming Mach truck from plowing into you. That paint
stripe however, has two aspects to it that you probably have
never given thought to.

1. Authority. You know the rules of the road. They
declare if and when a licensed drive operating within the
bounds of the law may cross over that painted line.

2. Knowledge. You have, from childhood to adult,
experienced the restraint that painted stripe places
upon travelers.

Now, it is no different with Christianity. We have both
knowledge and authority testifying to the fact that our
faith is sure. We could delve deeper into this issue but
I suspect that you did not come here to actually be
persuaded by the Truth. If I am wrong, I would be glad
to expand the discussion.

----

[The problem with Josephus is that it very much looks like one of his
references was modified by Christians. However that doesn't seem to
be true of the reference to James, and there's a reasonable chance
that even the modified one did orginally refer to Jesus. --clh]

[George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
Jesus in the books entitled "New Testament" existed?

Obviously you discount the NT record which has been scrutinized
more than any other book in history. The gospels portray Jesus
as one would expect from different witnesses of the same event
or happening. How many lawyers, university profs, men of high
intellectual pedigree set out to debunk the NT record only to come
full circle and admits its viability?
There is also the Jewish historian Josephus, which I am shocked
no one mentioned in this thread. Not only does he mention Jesus
but also His brother, James.

One fact that seems to have historical support from pagan, Jewish and
several Christian sources, is that Jesus had a brother named James.
Also there is a lot of historical support for Jesus being crucified
when Pilate ruled in Judea.

[Zor-El of Argo City]

1) We have the four biographies in the New Testament.
2) Jesus is menioned in Josephus.
3) Jesus is mentioned in Tacitus.
4) Jesus is mentioned in the letters of Pliny the Elder.
5) Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet of God.
6) the Jewish Talmud menions Jesus.

I have yet to come across any competent historians of that period who
doubt the existance of Jesus of Nazareth.

NUCLEAR POWER: The global warming solution!

[DKleinecke]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
[The problem with Josephus is that it very much looks like one of his
references was modified by Christians. However that doesn't seem to
be true of the reference to James, and there's a reasonable chance
that even the modified one did orginally refer to Jesus. --clh]

There seems to be no doubt in the mind of Lucian of Samostata that
Jesus lived and that the Christians were his followers. At least a
half dozen other non-Christian writers in the third century were
equally sure and there is even the graffiti of a crucified donkey. It
seems to have been universally acknowledged. Celsus, whom Origen wrote
against, dates from about this time.

So I think we can state that it as well established as anything is
ever likely to be that Jesus was accepted as having been a real
person in the third century. There is less non-Christian evidence in
the second, but none it contradicts the third century evidence. In the
first century the only non-Christian source is Josephus (I consider
his testimony conclusive).

But the original question was not well posed. There is Christian non-
biblical evidence from the first century - the Didache and probably
the Gospel of Thomas. But I imagine the questioner intended to
preclude them even though he said "non-biblical" when he meant non-
Christian.

If Jesus really never existed, as some have argued, the impression
that he had existed was established a long time ago among people who
had much better information than we do.