You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Proof??
- Thread starter Neville
- Start date
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Nothing compelling.
Dear Neville
I believe you'll find most historians agree that a man named Jesus existed in the lands around Jerusalem in the time upon which our calendar is now fixed as a starting point. Those who deny Jesus existed are a minority in the historical echelons.
As with any historical topic, you'll find those who dissent from the majority in their viewpoint. As for "historical evidence", this would depend on what you consider valid evidence.
Aside from the Gospel accounts of Jesus, you have a number of other people who were not disciples of Christ that mention him. Flavius Josephus is usually cited first. In AD 93, he published:
"Antiquities of the Jews"
a history of the Jewish people. This contains passages about Jesus, his life, death and resurrection, John the baptist, and James, the brother of Jesus. Some Biblical scholars have claimed these references are forgeries added later by Chrisitian editors.
The counterpoint to that minority opinion is that not one single ancient copy has been shown to not contain these passages. All ancient copies of his book, including the Arabic language versions, contain the disputed passages. It also bothers me personally that only the parts that make reference to NT events are ever disputed. Perhaps someone has an agenda?
Just a few other considerations to take into account too. Look at the setting. There were no typewriters, word processors, newspapers, printing presses or photcopiers. No TV or radio. They, Jesus and his Disciples, went mostly preaching in the rural areas with the exception Jerusalem. Everything was pretty much word of mouth. All of his activities took place in an extremely small period of time in the context of historical events, a blip on the radar screen of world history.
We have very little in the way of written documentation for that time period that have survived the ravages of time. Consider this comparison-- Aristotle's works were written between 384-322 BC, the earliest known copy is from 1100 AD, some 1,400 years had passed and something like only five copies are known to have survived. Pliny the Younger's works were written between 66 AD and 110 AD, the earliest known copy is from 850 AD. Seven copies survived. The NT was written between 64-85 AD and the earliest known copy is dated to around 130-140 AD and thousands (if not tens of thousands of copies when you include fragments) of copies survived.
With a little research and hard work you can investigate these claims about the historical Jesus for yourself. You shouldn't rely on others to tell you what the evidence says. It's out there. Ultimately, you will be persuaded by knowledge.
I believe you'll find most historians agree that a man named Jesus existed in the lands around Jerusalem in the time upon which our calendar is now fixed as a starting point. Those who deny Jesus existed are a minority in the historical echelons.
As with any historical topic, you'll find those who dissent from the majority in their viewpoint. As for "historical evidence", this would depend on what you consider valid evidence.
Aside from the Gospel accounts of Jesus, you have a number of other people who were not disciples of Christ that mention him. Flavius Josephus is usually cited first. In AD 93, he published:
"Antiquities of the Jews"
a history of the Jewish people. This contains passages about Jesus, his life, death and resurrection, John the baptist, and James, the brother of Jesus. Some Biblical scholars have claimed these references are forgeries added later by Chrisitian editors.
The counterpoint to that minority opinion is that not one single ancient copy has been shown to not contain these passages. All ancient copies of his book, including the Arabic language versions, contain the disputed passages. It also bothers me personally that only the parts that make reference to NT events are ever disputed. Perhaps someone has an agenda?
Just a few other considerations to take into account too. Look at the setting. There were no typewriters, word processors, newspapers, printing presses or photcopiers. No TV or radio. They, Jesus and his Disciples, went mostly preaching in the rural areas with the exception Jerusalem. Everything was pretty much word of mouth. All of his activities took place in an extremely small period of time in the context of historical events, a blip on the radar screen of world history.
We have very little in the way of written documentation for that time period that have survived the ravages of time. Consider this comparison-- Aristotle's works were written between 384-322 BC, the earliest known copy is from 1100 AD, some 1,400 years had passed and something like only five copies are known to have survived. Pliny the Younger's works were written between 66 AD and 110 AD, the earliest known copy is from 850 AD. Seven copies survived. The NT was written between 64-85 AD and the earliest known copy is dated to around 130-140 AD and thousands (if not tens of thousands of copies when you include fragments) of copies survived.
With a little research and hard work you can investigate these claims about the historical Jesus for yourself. You shouldn't rely on others to tell you what the evidence says. It's out there. Ultimately, you will be persuaded by knowledge.
Who killed Jesus?
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjesuskill.html
Why did Christianity become so popular?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_248.html
Did Jesus really exist?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjesuskill.html
Why did Christianity become so popular?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_248.html
Did Jesus really exist?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html