Contemporary (but non-Christian) historical resources regarding Jesus.

[Blacksword]

Do not dismiss Josephus' references. It is not true that they are "probably later insertions". Rather, a strong majority of scholars view the shorter of the two references in Josephus' writings as wholly accurate, and the longer discussion in his writings to be essentially accurate, with a few later Christian interpolations. There's a separate source of the same passage in Josephus kept by Muslim historians that is reliable, and lacks a few obvious Christian embellishments.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

David I'll trade you one of my Nero coins for one of your Jesus Christ coins.

If you're not a believer, why do you care? Are you trying to save us from ourselves?

[Sonny Jim]

Bart Ehrman (agnostic biblical scholar) discusses the existence of the historical Jesus with an atheist. Very interesting indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

[EricFilmer]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

If you're not a believer, why do you care? Are you trying to save us from ourselves?

Sedonaman, I kindly suggest that the discussion not be taken in this direction. Such a move will, after all, result in the thread being edited or even shut down by the mod, as the ban on such discussions is still in effect.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Blacksword

... There's a separate source of the same passage in Josephus kept by Muslim historians that is reliable, ...

If that doesn't convince them, nothing will.

[EricFilmer]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

David I'll trade you one of my Nero coins for one of your Jesus Christ coins.

Hokomai, although I agree that presenting such 1st Century material evidence is a worthy contribution to this discussion in general, I do not think this lessens the impact of what my brother presented in his OP. If 1st Century non-Christian historians (be they pagan or Jewish) did not take the time to write one word about Nero, who reigned for 14 years and was the most powerful man in the known world (by virtue of being the Roman emperor, which also meant that there were even people who considered him divine, as in the title, "divine Caesar") then one cannot expect them to have written about Jesus (whose earthly ministry lasted only three years, took place in the obscure outer fringes of the empire, and ended with him being one of thousands of people convicted as criminals and executed).

If someone considers the lack of 1st Century non-Christian documentation of Jesus to be a rebuttal of the NT and ECF accounts of Christ, one has to wonder how credible it is to expect such documentation to exist in the first place.

[Equites Christi]

I find it hard to believe that people made up a guy who allegedly travelled all over in real, specific cities, including Jerusalem, had public run-ins with the Sanhedrin and the Roman Governor, was alleged to preach publicly in the temple; that this man never existed, yet the locals were somehow fooled to believe that he did? This is not during some indefinite time in the past as most myths are, this is supposed to be during the reigns of Tiberius, Herod Antipas, and Pontius Pilate. All people would have to do is say "No one has ever seen him."

[cornbread_r2]

The argument from lack of contemporary, non-Christian references to Jesus is just one of several so-called arguments from silence. More problematic than that one IMO is the silence of Paul and other epistle writers and first century/early second century Christian apologists concerning his words and deeds.

In addition, it isn't just the lack of references to Jesus himself that are troubling, but also the lack of references to the extraordinary events surrounding his life, e.g. the nativity star; earthquakes, universal darkness and dead people rising upon his death.

[Publisher]

When one examines historical evidence of Jesus...it's sketchy at best.

Most modern biblical scholars do not believe any of the NT books were written by an of Jesus apostles....Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh", and all NT books were writtend decades after Jesus died. The ECF's aren't proof as none met him either....unless one wishes to take into account the pious traditions that one of the ECF's was the child Jesus made mention of in one of the gospels when his disciples was shooing the children away.

Josephus is really the only source outside of a mention of a "Chrestus" by a Roman, who's name escapes me at the moment.

Jesus was not a well known figure in the world....he was an insignificant itinerant preacher in Palestine. Christianity was an insignificant sect of Judaism until AFTER the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE, when it then "exploded" upon the scene as a major movement, due largely to Paul....outside of scripture and pious tradition none of the other apostles are even discussed or named.

[Lion of Narnia]

Originally Posted by Publisher

When one examines historical evidence of Jesus...it's sketchy at best.

Most modern biblical scholars do not believe any of the NT books were written by an of Jesus apostles.....

From my essay on John 6: "...The claim of “Late Composition” of the Gospels and Epistles (along with other largely unsupported theories, such as “Q”, “Markan priority”, “community composition, and “psuedographic authorship”) is more of an inherited habit of modern (after 1800) New Testament scholarship than a matter of evidence-based findings. The bias to “de-mythologize” the New Testament (e.g., remove supernatural events and claims) was born from the irreligious motives of the Enlightenment-era’s Deist “scholars”, called “scientific”, and passed on as secular orthodoxy. These largely unexamined guiding assumptions penetrated mainstream Protestant seminaries in the later 19th century (provoking in reaction the Fundamentalist movement) and after the “anti-modernism oath” was revoked by the Vatican in the 1950s, it entered into Catholic theology schools as well. Many very orthodox Catholic scholars cite Late Composition dates because that is what they were taught from their professors (many of them either secular or liberal Protestants) and because supporting a more traditional dating and authorship is seen as “uncritical”. However, “uncritical” seems to be the very attitude of modernist scholars towards the theories of “Late Composition” and the rest of their inherited traditions."

[Lion of Narnia]

Originally Posted by cornbread_r2

The argument from lack of contemporary, non-Christian references to Jesus is just one of several so-called arguments from silence. More problematic than that one IMO is the silence of Paul and other epistle writers and first century/early second century Christian apologists concerning his words and deeds.

In addition, it isn't just the lack of references to Jesus himself that are troubling, but also the lack of references to the extraordinary events surrounding his life, e.g. the nativity star; earthquakes, universal darkness and dead people rising upon his death.

Paul and the epistle writers were not "re-hashing" in their letters what their readers and listeners already knew from transmitted oral preaching and quite likely, already written gospels that preceded the approved "late composition dates" of liberal scholars. What does come up is because it is pertinent to a point the epistle writer is making.

The universal darkness does seem to be refered to by one Roman writer (I'm sorry, I know its refered to in one of Strobel's books) the nativity star MIGHT be from a quite natural stellar configuration ( http://www.bethlehemstar.net/ ) and the dead people rising seems to, like Christ's resurection appearence, appeared only to a few people, apparently those who were willing to believe

[Lion of Narnia]

Originally Posted by Equites Christi

I find it hard to believe that people made up a guy who allegedly travelled all over in real, specific cities, including Jerusalem, had public run-ins with the Sanhedrin and the Roman Governor, was alleged to preach publicly in the temple; that this man never existed, yet the locals were somehow fooled to believe that he did? This is not during some indefinite time in the past as most myths are, this is supposed to be during the reigns of Tiberius, Herod Antipas, and Pontius Pilate. All people would have to do is say "No one has ever seen him."

Indeed. Until the 70AD revolt, thousands of pilgrims every year journied to Jerusalem for Passover. Many of them, Jewish Christians, could have confirmed with the locals Jesus' career. There is not one single word that "No proof of his existence" was ever an issue, by either the Church's enemies or by the Church itself in responding to such a charge--and it would have been both a natural and devastating one by the early Church's enemies to use.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by EricFilmer

Hokomai, although I agree that presenting such 1st Century material evidence is a worthy contribution to this discussion in general, I do not think this lessens the impact of what my brother presented in his OP. If 1st Century non-Christian historians (be they pagan or Jewish) did not take the time to write one word about Nero, who reigned for 14 years and was the most powerful man in the known world (by virtue of being the Roman emperor, which also meant that there were even people who considered him divine, as in the title, "divine Caesar") then one cannot expect them to have written about Jesus (whose earthly ministry lasted only three years, took place in the obscure outer fringes of the empire, and ended with him being one of thousands of people convicted as criminals and executed).

If someone considers the lack of 1st Century non-Christian documentation of Jesus to be a rebuttal of the NT and ECF accounts of Christ, one has to wonder how credible it is to expect such documentation to exist in the first place.

On the balance of probabilities it seems to me extremely likely that there was a person on which the biblical accounts of Jesus are based. My Nero coin was just to point out that Nero is far better attested in the historical record, and that David's OP was missing a few facts. The efforts of some of my fellow unbelievers to argue that Jesus did not exist seem to me to be pointless and unscientific. At best this is a hypothesis and the facts need to be treated in a very unstraightforward way to fit it.

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by cornbread_r2

The argument from lack of contemporary, non-Christian references to Jesus is just one of several so-called arguments from silence. More problematic than that one IMO is the silence of Paul and other epistle writers and first century/early second century Christian apologists concerning his words and deeds.

In addition, it isn't just the lack of references to Jesus himself that are troubling, but also the lack of references to the extraordinary events surrounding his life, e.g. the nativity star; earthquakes, universal darkness and dead people rising upon his death.

Why would SP be expected to write about events in our LORD's life that he himself never saw, as he in fact never saw HIM as a living human being?

The same would go for anybody writing about HIM in the second century.

The truth is that as impressive as those events were to those who knew HIM, they were nothing in relation to HIS facing of and victory over death. That is why SP would say that he knew only "Christ, and Him crucified."

Shalom, ICXC NIKA

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Publisher

When one examines historical evidence of Jesus...it's sketchy at best.

Most modern biblical scholars do not believe any of the NT books were written by an of Jesus apostles....Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh", and all NT books were writtend decades after Jesus died. The ECF's aren't proof as none met him either....unless one wishes to take into account the pious traditions that one of the ECF's was the child Jesus made mention of in one of the gospels when his disciples was shooing the children away.

Josephus is really the only source outside of a mention of a "Chrestus" by a Roman, who's name escapes me at the moment.

Tacitus.