Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushinankil
Did Jesus exist?
What evidence is there for a man named Jesus who came from Nazareth. I was always told as a child that there was more evidence for Jesus existing than Julius Caesar. However through my own research I believe that what I was told to be false. There is no doubt that Jesus bares some similarity to other historic religious figures, however the evidence for this seems quite subjective.
So, is there any document written at the time of Jesus about the man anywhere to be found? preferably from unbiased sources such as a Roman or anyone without an incentive to enlarge the divinity of Jesus.
If you do a serious web search you will find many statements that virtually all professional historians and Bible scholars, Christian, atheist and agnostic, accept the historicity of Jesus. I'm talking about people who have Ph.D.'s in history and related subjects. If you want to go beyond counting heads the only serious inquiry you can make is to read the works of those scholars.
One of the most important areas to consider is the nature of the New Testament documents. Exactly what are they, who wrote them, when were they written, etc. This is also a serious and involving study. The consensus now is that all the documents, except Revelation(about 100A.D.) were written from about 50-80 A.D. These early dates are immensely important because the closer factual claims are in time to the events themselves the less likely they are fabricated. So to be thorough you have to do some real digging on the NT.
If you accept the early dates for the NT the historicity of Jesus is almost a slam dunk. The gospels are based on oral traditions so their content was current in the church much earlier than the written documents, at least within 10-15 years of Jesus' death. If that's the case, in order to reject Jesus' existence, you have to believe that in Jerusalem, in the mid-40's A.D., a group of people was going around preaching that a miracle working prophet of God had lived among them, but that they were making it up. Since the claims made about Him include allegations that He spoke to large groups of people, it's just incredible to think that anyone would be making these claims about a fictitious person, and even more incredible to think that even if they did their message would be accepted - but it was and spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire. The whole movement would have died instantly at the place it started if He didn't exist because nobody would have heard of Him even though the people preaching about Him were claiming that their audience knew Him.
Quote:
Acts 4:
5On the next day, their (G)rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem;
6and (H)Annas the high priest was there, and (I)Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.
7When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?"
8Then Peter, (J)filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "(K)Rulers and elders of the people,
9if we are on trial today for (L)a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well,
10let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that (M)by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom (N)God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health.
11"(O)He is the (P)STONE WHICH WAS (Q)REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone.
12"And there is salvation in (R)no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."
13Now as they observed the (S)confidence of (T)Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and (U)began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.
Notice that Peter is speaking to the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem, not only that they knew Jesus, but that they crucified Him. If Christians were making this claim in the mid-40s, and it was false, they would have been arrested and probably executed. There are many incidents like this in the NT, including a scene where Paul addresses King Agrippa:
Acts 26:
Quote:
26"For the king (AX)knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner.
27"King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do."
28Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a (AY)Christian."
If this document, Acts, was being circulated while Agrippa was still King, and I think it was, then you have to believe it's lying about Paul making these statements to the King. In those days, lying about a King was a ticket to suicide - especially for Christians who were not viewed favorably by the Jewish leaders.
One final point - even if the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses (though I think they were, except perhaps Luke), they were circulated throughout the church while many who were eyewitnesses were still alive. If nobody had ever heard of the things claimed in these documents and many were in a position to show they were false, how could the stories continue to be accepted? It isn't a question of accepting a philosophy about the nature of God or the afterlife, but about factual claims concerning real people and events, claims made to people who would have known they were false. Even if someone tried that, why would it be successful?