A myth has been circulating for some time that there is no proof of Christ's existence. That is not true. There are many references from original source documents from the era (mostly Roman) which indeed reference Christ and the first Christians.
The myth seemed to evolve out of the history written by Josephus who barely mentioned the early Christians. But, he did mention them. And, he was not a historian as we know of them today, he was a "court" historian. He was a kind of PR man for the Roman rule. So, his job was to make the Romans look good, report about their victories and etc. It certainly was not part of his job description to describe people who were different, unusual or rebelling against the norms. Even so, he did mention them. Considering that bad reporting by a historian might result in jail, even mentioning them at all is considerable proof of their existence.
Historicity of Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
+++
Roman Historian proof
from:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?ID=138266598
Cornelius Tacitus
Author's Background
Cornelius Tacitus (56-120 AD) has been called the greatest historian on ancient Rome. He lived during the reign of several Roman emperors and was a Roman historian and a governor of Asia [Turkey] in AD 112. He wrote two major works: Annals and the Histories. The following is a quote from the Annals.
Reference To Jesus Christ
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures 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 one of our procurators, 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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. - Annals 15.44
Conclusion
This reference reveals several key things:
1) Christ lived during the reign of Tiberius (AD 14-37).
2) Pontius Pilate put him to death.
3) The word "superstition" suggests a religion.
4) Christ had followers who were named Christians.
5) The Christians suffered under Nero and they were hated by others.
Originally posted by r99pawn77Welcome to Red Hot Pawn.
A myth has been circulating for some time that there is no proof of Christ's existence. That is not true. There are many references from original source documents from the era (mostly Roman) which indeed reference Christ and the first Christians.
The myth seemed to evolve out of the history written by Josephus who barely mentioned the early Christians re named Christians.
5) The Christians suffered under Nero and they were hated by others.
Originally posted by r99pawn77I have seen akeptics attack this evidence also. They might suggest for example, that "Christus" was probably not Jesus of Nazareth.
is that a threat? LOL!
Thier ability to manufacture what they would consider reasonable doubts, knows no end.
Christians have also been accused of fabricating statements attributed to Josephus about Jesus.
Josephus on Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
article says that most scholars accept the reference as valid and not manufactured.
and, of course, with all the other evidence from a variety of sources...
it does not seem fabricated...
yeah, there really were a group of folks who split off from Judaism and yeah, they were really led by someone. Yes, it really happened.
They way people argue against this reminds me of Holocaust deniers....
Meh!...are you asking us to believe that there existed a mortal human with no more special powers or ties with the supernatural than I, who said wise things 2000 years ago and happened to be called Jesus?
Or are you asking us to believe in magic twinkle dust Jesus who is the son of God, walks on water and has a desperate longing to save you from eternal peril (imposed by himself) if we only accept him into our hearts and concede what terrible horrible sinners we are by virtue of the naughty fruit munching exploits of Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden (or some other notion of original sin) so as to fend off the evil machinations of talking snake turned ruler of the underworld Satan? (who presumably can't be killed by omnipotent omnibenevolent God)
I suspect the latter 😞
Originally posted by r99pawn77They way people argue against this reminds me of Holocaust deniers....
Josephus on Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
article says that most scholars accept the reference as valid and not manufactured.
and, of course, with all the other evidence from a variety of sources...
it does not seem fabricated...
yeah, there really were a group of folks who split off from Judaism and yeah, they were r ...[text shortened]... s, it really happened.
They way people argue against this reminds me of Holocaust deniers....
Come on, let's not be silly now.
You have on one hand some text written by Cornelius Tacitus who was born around 20yrs after Jesus died, and most probably wrote his text at least 40yrs after Jesus died. And on the other hand, you have eye witness testimony, photos, documentation, signed confessions of the protagonists, survivors of the actual event. I would say the evidence for the Holocaust far outweighs the evidence for Jesus.
Have you also considered that there maybe people who accept there was a historical figure called Jesus, but that he was just a mere mortal like you and me?
Originally posted by Agerg=============================
Meh!...are you asking us to believe that there existed a mortal human with no more special powers or ties with the supernatural than I, who said wise things 2000 years ago and happened to be called Jesus?
Or are you asking us to believe in magic twinkle dust Jesus who is the son of God, walks on water and has a desperate longing to save you from eternal pe ...[text shortened]... n? (who presumably can't be killed by omnipotent omnibenevolent God)
I suspect the latter 😞
Or are you asking us to believe in magic twinkle dust Jesus ....
=============================
I suppose you feel this phrase is representative of the New Testament.
"Once upon a time there was a magic twinkle dust Jesus ..."
No, we are not asking you to believe in "a magic twinkle dust Jesus".
We're asking you to continue making a fool of yourself so some real truth seekers can see how lame skeptics can really be.
Originally posted by r99pawn77Well, what constitutes 'proof'? Lets rather talk about the strength of the evidence.
A myth has been circulating for some time that there is no proof of Christ's existence. That is not true.
There are many references from original source documents from the era (mostly Roman) which indeed reference Christ and the first Christians.
Before going into specific references, lets first establish what you are trying to provide evidence for, and what is under dispute.
You presumably claim:
1. A person by the name of Jesus (or the Jewish equivalent) existed and was the subject of the New Testament books.
2. That he was as claimed by the New Testament books.
Now suppose my counter claims (that you may be trying to disprove) are as follows:
a. Nobody by the name of Jesus (or the Jewish equivalent) existed in the given time period (lets say BC 10 to AD 40)
or
b. The subject of the New Testament books was not a real person at all, but people by that name may have existed and even been commonplace.
or
c. New Testament books could have been partially based on a real person or several real people, but are largely non-factual.
Now lets look at what is not under dispute:
i). That the New Testament books were written circa AD 1 to AD 200
ii) That at the time the books were written or even before, there was a group of people who believed that Jesus as described in the New Testament books or similar to that description had existed. ie there were Christians.
Now you may present your sources, keeping in mind that they must contradict a., b. or c. not merely confirm i) and ii) which are not under dispute.
Originally posted by jaywillWe're asking you to continue making a fool of yourself so some real truth seekers can see how lame skeptics can really be.
[b]=============================
Or are you asking us to believe in magic twinkle dust Jesus ....
=============================
I suppose you feel this phrase is representative of the New Testament.
"Once upon a time there was a magic twinkle dust Jesus ..."
No, we are not asking you to believe in "a magic twinkle dust Jesus". ...[text shortened]... king a fool of yourself so some real truth seekers can see how lame skeptics can really be.[/b]
Gimme a break. You're not interested in the truth, to quote the famous film line -
Truth??.......You want the truth??..........You can't handle the truth!!!!!
All your interested in is propping up your own dogma, based on the writings of some unknown Bronze Age desert tribesman.
Originally posted by Proper Knob===================================
[b]We're asking you to continue making a fool of yourself so some real truth seekers can see how lame skeptics can really be.
Gimme a break. You're not interested in the truth, to quote the famous film line -
Truth??.......You want the truth??..........You can't handle the truth!!!!!
All your interested in is propping up your own dogma, based on the writings of some unknown Bronze Age desert tribesman.[/b]
All your interested in is propping up your own dogma, based on the writings of some unknown Bronze Age desert tribesman.
==============================
There were 40 different writers involved over 1600 years in the writing of the Bible.
Open mouth, change feet.
Originally posted by jaywillI'll change a vowel, but it still doesn't alter my point.
[b]===================================
All your interested in is propping up your own dogma, based on the writings of some unknown Bronze Age desert tribesman.
==============================
There were 40 different writers involved over 1600 years in the writing of the Bible.
Open mouth, change feet.[/b]
Unknown Bronze Age desert tribesmen.
No one doubts there was some guy called jesus or whatever alive at the time but so what? What proof is there that this man died and rose again on the third day and that he died for our sins so we could be saved and that he was the son of God? None whatsoever. And there never will be.
Originally posted by clearlightActually there is some who doubt that he existed at all.
No one doubts there was some guy called jesus or whatever alive at the time but so what? What proof is there that this man died and rose again on the third day and that he died for our sins so we could be saved and that he was the son of God? None whatsoever. And there never will be.