Evidence for Jesus Christ?

[Napoléon]

Hey people!

I want to propose a challenge if you will. A challenge to any christians on this forum, or anyone else who wants to get involved.

My question is this, what evidence can you provide me with, OTHER than the bible, that jesus existed?

This may have been discussed before but i've flicked through the threads and not really found a recent one devoted to this particular question.

I want to let you guys know the reasoning behind this question, i've been watching the atheist experience for a few months now, and a popular comeback they have to people who claim the existence of jesus is 'prove it'. Well these particular atheists claim there is no evidence for jesus, and also claim that there are no other writings about jesus other than in the bible.

However i have come across things such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus which would suggest that these particular atheists are wrong.

Does anyone here know about Josephus in more depth? and do you guys think that more simple text is enough to prove he existed?

What i really would like is for someone to provide me with some physical evidence, like what he actually wrote, or a tomb or a piece of carpentry he made (he was a carpenter afterall). Otherwise i guess in arguements against Christians i can just use the line 'prove it'?


There's kinda alot here but what the bottom line question i would like to discuss is what evidence if you are a Christian would you give me that jesus existed?

Thanks for reading

Napo!

[thesummerqueen]

Oh Boy.

<subscribe>

Minimalist...come out, come out, wherever you are...

Your Queen awaits your systematic destruction of their arguments.

[Faith No More]

If I remember correctly Josephus wrote about Jesus in the third or fourth century long after the books of the bible had been written. He also only refers to Jesus in one lonley sentence.

[fr0d0]

We don't currently have any historian members. We did have one once but he was banned when subjected to racist abuse for being Irish.

You can check the balance of opinion on Wikipedia here and here if you don't want to confirm your own bias.

[Napoléon]

If I remember correctly Josephus wrote about Jesus in the third or fourth century long after the books of the bible had been written. He also only refers to Jesus in one lonley sentence.

Josephus was a 1st century historian. The first line on the wiki article i quoted.
This is the problem i seem to have though, there seems to be no neutral writer at the time jesus existed who catalogued his miraculous journey's and miracles.
I want to discount the bible for any of this evidence because it is a collection of many different people's writings from centuries apart and often contradicts itself. Also i have the firm belief that it is all bullshit from the start anyway.

We don't currently have any historian members. We did have one once but he was banned when subjected to racist abuse for being Irish.

You can check the balance of opinion on Wikipedia here and here if you don't want to confirm your own bias.

I'm not asking for a historian, i just want to see what evidence you have to believe jesus existed?
In terms of your belief frodo do you just take the bible's word as absolute truth? do you feel the need to have any other evidence of jesus or are the bible's writings enough for you?

I guess i am already pretty biased but that's why i wrote this thread. I want to see your best evidence for jesus's existance. I think it's highly likely he did exist but when i have often seen atheists say there is no evidence i want to see what a person like yourself has to say on the matter.

[Rwandrall]

Can i just say: posing challenges to christians on this forum is pretty useless...since there are very few of them.

Some (very few) christian forums do not auto-ban atheists...try those first

[Napoléon]

Can i just say: posing challenges to christians on this forum is pretty useless...since there are very few of them.

Some (very few) christian forums do not auto-ban atheists...try those first

If you'd have read the post you'd have realised it wasn't a challenge exclusive to Christians. The fact that there ARE Chistians on here enables me to challenge them in any way i wish.

[fr0d0]

I'm not much interested in historicity Nap. I take the bible as it's intended, as divine truth, & not truth about anything else. What you're asking is a sideline to what Christians believe. Did Jesus really exist: well look at the links to see an unbiased representation of our best knowledge at present. I'm of the opinion that he did actually exist, and I take the positions of those people referenced, as those actually interested on AF take the side of those who disagree that he existed. Fact is... there's no hard evidence either way, no matter how much you want there to be.

[Minimalist]

Oh Boy.

<subscribe>

Minimalist...come out, come out, wherever you are...

Your Queen awaits your systematic destruction of their arguments.

Bishop William Warburton ( died, 1779 ) wrote of the Testimoniam Flavianum: "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."


You have to ask your xtian buddies why there is not a single reference by a xtian writer to the TF before that noted liar, Eusebius suddenly "discovered" it, in all its glory, Nap.

This nonsense about a partial reference began for the same reason that Eusebius forged the fucking thing in the first place.....xtians were embarrassed by the fact that their godboy did not appear in the historical record.
Knowing that they could not hold that the whole thing was legitimate, xtian ( mainly asshole protestants) writers began trying to salvage some of this shit so they could still claim their boy existed.

The 3d century xtian writer Origen makes specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews in Contra Celsus. About 75 years before Eusebius he categorically states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ. It is thus impossible to reconcile the two as the TF would have significantly helped the argument that Origen was trying to make had it existed.

Since I'm feeling charitable this morning I'll dig out the reference from Origen.

Book 1 Ch. XLVII

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just,

The serious flaw in Origen's argument is that Josephus said no such thing. In fact, for a guy who loved to hike up the body count he never says in the text that "James'" sentence was ever carried out. What he says is that people appealed to the king ( Herod Agrippa II) and the Roman Procurator, Lucceius Albinus, and that the high priest who ordered the trial was removed from office.

In Wars of the Jews, Josephus makes clear that the destruction of the temple was god's punishment for the desecration of the temple by the zealots.

In any case, the fact remains that prior to the 4th century there is NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE TF in any xtian writings in any form.

[DeistPaladin]

My question is this, what evidence can you provide me with, OTHER than the bible, that jesus existed?

The only historical evidence that the Gospels might be based on the life of a real wandering rabbi is found in the Annals of Tacitus, and even this doesn't mention Jesus by name.

Tacitus writes about the Christians, explaining that there name is derived from "Christus" (which, in Latin, means "the anointed one") and explains that this founder was crucified by Pilate.

Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

That's it. Full stop. This is all you can find. It's cursory, late (early 2nd century) and an oblique reference. Oh, and Pilate was a "prefect", not a "procurator", but apologists accuse me of picking nits if I mention that. For all we know, Tacitus could have been passing on what the Christians told him.

Tacitus makes no mention of a resurrection or this Christus being seen by his followers at a later time, a point which should have piqued the interest of a Roman noble. A condemned criminal hanging out with his followers later? And Tactitus had a confirmed fascination with mythical beings and supernatural events.

As for Josephus, I'm astonished that any Christian ever mentions the TF. Even sleazy apologists are forced to admit that there was tampering by Christian scribes. Just read the whole paragraph and you can easily imagine a delivery by a manic pentecostal preacher:

Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Wow, an orthodox Jew calling Jesus "the Christ" or "the messiah"? Confirming he was a miracle worker? Fulfilled the prophecies? Was resurrected? Seriously? Here we have an orthodox Jew who preaches nearly all the points of Christian theology in rapid fire succession in one short paragraph? This is the stuff of Christian propaganda, from the pen of an unbeliever?

This is why apologists like Strobel or McDowell begin to fidget and admit, "um, there do seem to be a few interpolations" and try to argue for "partial authenticity". I'm still waiting for any evidence that the paragraph is "partially authentic" but the Christians do have friends in the "evidence" fabrication industry so it may come in my lifetime.

There is another reference in Josephus, the so-called "Jamesian reference". Unfortunately for the Christians, it refers to Jesus Bar Damneus. Jesus was a common name back then.