The historical Jesus movement is only a recent movement in history. Over the last hundred years or so. So why re-write history now one has to ask?

There are books that have been written on the Apostles showing that they lived.

excerpt:

A book written by C. Bernard Ruffin entitled 'The Twelve' lists sources of early records of the apostles. He listed the following sources. He said other writers from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries give us more information that the apostles did exist. One of these was written by Papias (A.D. 60-135). He was the bishop of Hierapolis, in what is now Turkey. He was a disciple of John. St. Clement of Rome (d. 101) was a disciple of Peter and Paul and served as pope between A.D. 91-101. Another writer was Iranaeus (A.D. 120-202) the bishop of Lyon (in what is now France). Other reliable writings belong to Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-217). He was an eminent Greek theologian and hymnist. Others were Hippolytus (A.D. 170-236), an author of a number of theological works; Tertullian (A.D. 145-221, a Latin-speaking African theologian, Origen (A.D. 185-254), an Egyptian teacher and theologian and St. Jerome (342-420), an Italian scholar and translator. These writings include bits and pieces about the apostles and are what many of our churches have used, along with the Bible, as a basis for their individual histories.

Actually, I recently asked someone from the Christian Union at my university about the evidence for Jesus' existence. He provided me with similar sources to the ones provided in this thread. I followed up my question with what evidence is out there for Samsons' existence and what evidence there is for Abraham. The reason people question Jesus' existence is obviously that he is the figurehead for the world's largest religion.

In our discussion, he told me that there was more evidence for Jesus existence than Julius Caesar, I responded that coinage of the period should be enough to prove his existence. I am currently looking for as much evidence for Julius Caesar for our next meeting.

In Herodotus' case I think that the consensus is that the events and people he wrote down probably did happen/exist, however the details are probably skewed.

Considering 25% of the word's population claim to be Christian, I think looking for evidence towards his existence is extremely important. If I were a Christian I would want to know as much about the man as possible and seek every resource to further my knowledge about him. I would also question the evidence provided and look for as much unbiased evidence as possible. I think not doing so would be silly.

If Jesus did not exist then Christianity is wrong, without question. If Jesus did exist then Christianity could be right. I never said that proving his existence automatically gave credence to his supernatural claims. It most certainly does not.

Actually, Joshua is the English translation of Yeshua. Asking for Josh in Classical Israel would yield no results.

Jesus' genealogy could be a good piece of evidence for Jesus' existence. I was always told however that the Jews thought their Messiah would be a son of David. Since King David was such a hero the Jews thought their Messiah would be a son of David. Jesus being known as Son of David, might not literally mean he is a descendant of David but analogous to him being the Messiah.

Anyway, assuming Jesus is literaly of David's or Abraham's line. Maybe if we could find evidence for David's descendents or for all of the people you listed for Abraham's descendents - leading to Jesus, this could point Jesus being a real historical person.

Obviously this is true, however, I think the original intent of the statement was lost. The point was that, given the amount of time Jesus was both

1) still alive and
2) noteworthy to an impartial observer

was a very, very small amount of time, especially taking into account when you're digging through 2000 years of history.

Add onto that that the people who would be most likely to write down accounts of him would have either 1) been one of his followers, thus failing the demand for objectivity or 2) seen him as one of many Jewish political radicals (which were quite common at the time), hardly worth the mention until his movement caught on in a significant political way, which was not until after his death (thus failing the request for finding evidence written while he was still alive).

In short, I agree with you that finding such evidence would be highly valuable. However, it's really not surprising that it hasn't surfaced, given the extreme circumstances.

For what it's worth, this is more or less accurate. Genealogies to Jews of the time period weren't intended to be 100% accurate, they were intended to give renown to the person, so there are often gaps, deviations, and perhaps even fabrications in genealogies of the time. This "lack of accuracy" would have been understood by first century Jews, and seen as unimportant - it wasn't the purpose of giving the genealogy in the first place.

How is Jesus considered part of David's line when Joseph was not his father? Just assume I'm a Christian asking this, I'm actually curious and not trying to pick a fight.

Nit.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

Two ways. Joseph was Jesus' earthly, legal father, a kind of adoption. Also, Mary was a descendant of David so Jesus also was in the physical bloodline.

Thanks.

I'm sorry. I missed this part of the Bible. Reference, please?

Nice try, but I don't think that counts. A bloodline is a bloodline.

well i don't think you can win this one by insisting that God is his father, since God made Adam etc. etc.

Depends on whether you have a 20th century American view of what makes a bloodline viable/important or a 1st-2nd century Jewish one.

So, someone help me out, when was the Bible written again?

Also, Mary was a descendant of David as well.

I'm not. If Joseph is not his "father", then he isn't a descendant of David.

As with NotReady, reference please?

Hello to all this mighty fine night! If any one cares to read this they will have the answer to the question and debate at hand, hopefully none of you get ADD or as I might put it to lazy and actually not really interested in hearing or learning, but more interested in debating.

I apologize to the sincere who are actually interested in learning. And I also apologize for the length but it is needed to actually understand this subject.

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

As the promised "Branch", it was prophesied that the Christ would demonstrate four unique characteristics: He would be a King, a Servant, a Man, and the Son of God. The four gospels were written to show how Jesus Christ fulfilled these old testament prophecies.

The gospel of Mark portrays Christ as a Servant. A Servant does not gain his status by genealogy or birthright and therefore Mark contains no record of the birth or genealogy of Jesus Christ.

The gospel of John portrays Christ as the Son of God. As God's only begotten son Jesus Christ needs no human genealogy and once again no record of his birth is required.


Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed which is Christ.

God selected Abraham and his seed to be His people from whom the Christ would come. Later as the the nation of Israel grew from the 12 sons of Jacob the tribe of Judah was selected to rule. It was from Judah that the promised Christ would come:

Genesis 49:10
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

The Christ was to be King over God's people, Israel, and God narrowed the genealogical requirement further with a promise to David that the Christ would come from his seed:

Psalm 89:3-4
I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.

Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him [David], that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

The genealogy recorded in the book of Matthew traces the bloodline of Jesus Christ through his human parents to show his birthright as King of Israel and descendant of both David and Abraham. There is no recording of the actual birth of Jesus Christ in Matthew. The record begins with his kingly genealogy followed by the record of Joseph accepting the responsibility of raising Jesus as a son in his house. The record then jumps ahead to the visit of the magi a year and three months after the birth of Christ; men who came from the east seeking the young child who had been born King of the Judeans.

The Christ had to be made of the seed of David according to the flesh. While Joseph was of the seed of David, Jesus Christ did not receive any real genetic characteristics from Joseph as God (by creation of seed in Mary's womb) was Jesus Christ's genetic father. Joseph accepted the responsibility to raise Jesus as his son and thus legally Jesus Christ was heir to the bloodline of David. However, his genetic tie to the promised kingly bloodline came from Mary who was also of the house of David. That is why the genealogy listed in Matthew is Mary's line as the Christ had to be made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

In order to show Jesus Christ the King, Matthew begins by documenting that he was a descendant of both David and Abraham as required by the old testament prophesies. Then follows his kingly genealogy:

Matthew 1:2-16
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband[father] of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

The genealogy begins with Abraham follows through to David (who it then identifies as KING), then continues on to Jesus the Christ. Verse 16, as translated, contradicts the genealogy given in Luke where Joseph (Mary's husband) is identified as the son of Heli.

The genealogy in Matthew is identifying the bloodline in which Christ is of the seed of David according to the flesh. It is Mary's line. The confusion comes because Mary's father was named Joseph and Mary's husband was also named Joseph.

The Greek word translated husband in Matthew 1:16 is the word andra from the root word aner. Aner is translated in various places in God's Word as husband, prophet, fellow, murderer, and man. It's meaning is determined by the context but it is always used in reference to an adult male.

In the Aramaic the word gavra which means "mighty man" is the word used in this verse. The mighty man of a household in the Bible was the father. This genealogy is Mary's line clearly showing Jesus Christ's genetic and legal claim to the throne of David.

Jesus Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh. God put one more safeguard on the genealogy by dividing it into three equal sections in verse 17:

Matthew 1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Only by understanding Joseph as Mary's father do the verses in Matthew 1:2-16 break down into three groups of fourteen generations:




The gospel of Luke was written to show Jesus Christ the man. It is in Luke that we read the record of his birth in a manger and the visit of common shepherds from the Judean hills. In Genesis 3:15 God promised mankind a redeemer who would be a man who would walk the walk Adam failed to walk in the beginning - the seed of the woman.

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The gospel of Luke tells of the believing of Mary in her declaration:

Luke 1:38
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

The gospel of Luke tells of Jesus Christ's circumcision at eight days, his "coming of age" at twelve, and the beginning of his ministry at "about 30." In order to redeem man, Jesus Christ had to be a man, descended from Adam, who would walk a perfect walk before God. As all men are descended from Adam the Word of God documents his human genealogy tracing his line back to Adam through his adoptive father Joseph. This genealogy is recorded as he began to be about 30 in verse 23 of Luke Chapter 3.

Luke 3:23-38
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

In a society built upon paternal genealogy, Jesus Christ needed credentials through his (as was supposed by society) father Joseph as well as the credentials of his mother. Joseph assumed the responsibility for Jesus as his son and it was Joseph's line that gave him full legal standing in the House of David. The genealogy in Luke is not a kingly genealogy or royal lineage. Luke traces Jesus Christ's line through Nathan (who was not a king) the son of David rather than through Solomon. The two genealogies are identical from Abraham to David but not from David to Mary and Joseph.

Jesus Christ was the offspring of Mary and God. Thus he was born with no sinful nature in him (as the life of the flesh which was corrupted by sin is passed from father to son by the seed of the father), yet he was totally a man. He had to grow and mature and learn to walk with God just as any other man. He had to learn of his mission to redeem man and he had to fulfill all the genetic requirements of the promised seed of the woman. He had to be a descendent of Adam, Abraham, and David. He was and is God's plan for the redemption of man. He is the only begotten son of God.

Some Extra Biblical research notes:

God has a purpose for everything He says, where He says it, why He says it, when He says it and to whom He says it. The records given in the gospels were set forth as they are because that is how God gave them. The second group of fourteen generations listed in Matthew purposely omits four of David's descendants in this line. God inspired Matthew to set forth the generations as they appear. Matthew had to be aware of the records in the old testament, but God gave the generations as they appear in the book of Matthew for the expressed purpose of showing Jesus Christ's kingly line. The omitted "kings" are Ahaziah (II Kings 8:24-9:27 and II Chronicles 22:1-9) the son of Joram (number 6), Ahaziah's son Joash (II Kings 11:2-12:20 and II Chronicles 24:1-22), Joash's son Amaziah (II Kings 14:1-19 and II Chronicles 25), and Jehoiakim (II Kings 23:34-24:6 and II Chronicles 36:1-8) the son of Josias (number 13). The reason for their omission could be idolatry or wickedness, since certain generations had names deleted for this reason. But whatever the reason, the record is as God gave it and the names listed are divided into three sets of 14 generations.

There is no record of the "Cainan" listed in Luke 3:36 in the Old Testament. Genesis 11:12 lists Sala as the immediate and direct son of Arphaxad. Although most manuscripts include the "Cainan" listed in verse 36, the error may have come in when an early scribe copying this section of Luke allowed his eye to drop to the Cainan of Luke 3:37 and mistakenly copied the name in verse 36 as well. The Codex Bezae omits "which was the son of Cainan" in verse 36; the third-century papyrus known as p75 appears to support this omission.

Hi!

I've read it all, and find it severely lacking, in all but rhetoric.

Wrong.

Matthew is absolutely clear:

Matthew 1:
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham ... Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Sorry, Pletho, your rhetoric is flawless, but you interpretation of scripture needs much improvement.

I think you need to read a little closer and more accurately.

I dont think you are seeing what is written. Maybe you read over it to quickly.

Pay close attention to what I have written word for word. You are missing the point trying to be made. I am human but I am pretty sure that this is very accurate. Maybe a typo here are there possibly but as for doctrinal, it is right on the button.

Pletho

well yeah, but a Christian is going to say that if Joseph is not his father then God is, and so he gets a free pass to claim any bloodline he wants since God is the father of everyone

Actually a Christian is going to point out that Romans states that Jesus was a descendant of David 'according to the flesh' in Romans 1:3, which would then seem to imply Mary is from the line of Joseph.

Also, if it was accepted in Jewish culture that adopting someone made them part of your bloodline, and Jewish people made the original prophecy, it's a weak argument to suggest that because Joseph was only Jesus' adoptive father, the prophecy is not fulfilled. You're taking 20th century western views and projecting them onto an ancient Jewish prophecy about Jews doing Jewish stuff according to Jewish customs.

I wouldn't stop someone from arguing against the legitimacy of prophecy in general, but trying to disprove a prophecy on a 20th century notion of bloodline that a first century Jew would see as totally irrelevant doesn't much cut it.


Of course, you could throw out the Romans account, and throw out the views of the people who were originally writing/reading the stuff and how they would have understood it, but once you've done that, you're just projecting bias onto an ancient text, and any potential integrity it may have had (either literally, or just as a way to tell us more about the people of the time) is lost.

May as well just say that Jesus is absolutely divine because he's directly descended from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I ****in KNEW IT!

As usual everyone doesnt read my thread closely and honestly and think about what is being said they just run through it or dont bother because they are more interested in arguing and being right themselves than learning the truth about the matter. Go figure. Cats chasing their own tails. LOL

Again the answer to the question and debate is in what I wrote if you care to actually, slowly, attentively read it and research what I am saying.

Pletho

Lol...they're always interested in arguing that's why I've been mentioning attitude to them a lot lately.

The atheists biggest problem is most probably that they never even realized that God loves them. That is what the whole Fall in the Garden of Eden was about.

Instead of arguing what they really need to do is spend a session every day meditating during which they tell themselves over and over again "God loves me...God loves me....God loves me" then pray for guidance and read his book The Bible.

God has prepared everything for those that love him. Its the realization that he loves us that makes us love him back. So start there and don't give up until he answers you. Not even if it takes the rest of your life.

I can understand the unbelief and being skeptacle about things. There is a lot of false and moronic things being done by Christians and imposters of Christianity nowdays.

Everyone has to start from somewhere. Paul the apostle definatley was doing things opposite of Christianity at one time in his life but God knew his heart and that deep down inside he wanted to do what was right. So he overlooked his stupidity and mistakes.

What is irritating is that people on this forum who are not genuinely sincere get on here just to harass the Christians who are trying at times to either share the word with someone else or with each other. They dont believe so why do they even bother? I am not trying to defend my beliefs on here at all. I see a question in a forum that I believe I can shed some knowledge and light about so I share it.

My attitude is this, "if you believe what I say then great, glad to hear it, if you don't, oh well no sweat off my back" I am not going to try and convince a goat that they are a lamb. To many Christians try and defend what they say, I may try and clarify if I see that I said something without clarity, but never defend.

Jesus Christ never minced his words or double clutched or defended what he said. As a matter of fact he knew at times people would hate what he said, but he said it anyway because it was truth and needed to be said. If truth is never spoken with boldness then NO ONE would ever have a chance to believe. We can't go around trying to offend but on the other hand we can't be worried HOW someone will recieve what needs to be said. Just say it and let the chips fall where they may.

Pletho

Yes there are a lot of impostors today. Plus the general lack of reverence and obsession with political correctness has done a lot of damage.