We Know More About Jesus than we do about Julius Caesar?


#1

What do people mean by saying “we know more about Jesus than we do about Julius Caesar.”?

I mean what evidence is there that Christ has more historical and archaeological evidence,
Than a Roman Caesar who at the timed ruled all of Rome? Wouldn’t there be more written documents on Caesar than on Christ?

Please provide links or book recommendations on this topic if you have any:thumbsup:
If not please share your God given knowledge about this topic:)


#2

People say a lot of things that don’t stand up to scrutiny. In the case of Caesar, we have what amounts to an autobiography in Caesar’s Chronicles. Contemporary writers, coins, archaeological sites, etc. are all things that we do not have on Christ.

The statement is glaringly false.


#3

It depends upon faith.

If one is speaking of actual archeological and historical evidence of Christ, probably Caesar is more fully documented.

If you are a person of faith, there are VOLUMES written on the life of Christ and the workings of God in our world from the beginning. They are in one single volume- the Bible. There are also other writings not found in the bible that speak of Christ as a definite historic figure.

If you are a person of faith, you have an intimate, personal relationship with God. This brings with it great understanding of each of the three persons of the Trinity including their roles, their characteristics, their works, etc. I may have more scientifically accepted facts about Caesar. But those facts collectively do not begin to approach the full knowledge of Christ that I have from His Word.

So yes, I know Christ far better than I do Caesar.


#4

:thumbsup:


#5

I’ve never heard this about Julius Caesar, but maybe about Tiberius… as well as one of the big name Philosophers - Plato maybe - where all we have is what his student wrote.

Regardless if I have those names right, there are plenty of people and events in history that are only mentioned once, or there are completely conflicting reports, yet historians don’t doubt these people existed or these events happened.

All those rules seem to get changed when it comes to Jesus Christ. Suddenly the numerous writings from eye witnesses are thrown out as ‘biased’ and even the writings of ‘secular’ historians of the day are nit-picked and thrown out.

If we apply merely the same historical standards that we do to the accounts of say Hannibal’s invasion of Italy or the Battle of Thermopylae or of Mohammad what we find is that something truly world changing happened in a back-water part of the Roman Empire around 33AD due to a lowly carpenter.

Like no other event in history, the events surrounding Jesus changed the world. Problem is most historians - like most people - don’t like their live challenged. If they were to study the life of Jesus like they would study other history, their lives would be challenged.


#6

Can you name some of those ancient, secular historians? Many that I know of came years later/were born years later after Jesus’ death, they couldnt have been eyewitness accounts.


#7

Sorry I did not mean to imply that there were secular eyewitness accounts. There are secular historians that attest to Jesus existence, that he was Crucified and that after a short ‘lull’ the whole movement came back in earnest and was spreading throughout the empire.

What I was trying to say is that the eyewitness accounts that we have are not held up to the same standards that non-religious eyewitness historical events are held. If historians would evaluate the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life the same way they evaluate other non-religious accounts of other events in history, they could not just dismiss Jesus out of hand like many do today.

Hope this helps clarify.
God Bless, :signofcross:
PoorKnight for Christ and His Church


#8

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.