Jesus of Nazareth is an actual, historical figure.  There is solid, historical, extra-Biblical evidence that Jesus truly lived and walked this earth.  The evidence is so sound that most scholars, even those who deny the Christian understanding of Jesus, will agree that Jesus is a legitimate person of history.

 

I will briefly share with you four historical references, arguably from the First Century AD, which witness to the presence of Jesus.  While these writers/writings are respected by modern scholarship, they certainly do not come from a sympathetic perspective.  They are not defending or trying to maintain a myth.

 

(1) Josephus (AD 37-100), a Jewish general and historian who took part in the revolt against the Romans.  He wrote History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, and both continue even today to be major sources of information.  In his Antiquities, he writes:

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life…”

(2) Tacitus (AD 55-120), a Roman historian who wrote two long histories, covering imperial events from AD 14-96.  His annals are generally regarded as both authentic and historically accurate.

His mention of Christ is in context with the persecution of the Christians under Nero:

“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.”

(3) Pliny the Younger (AD 63-113), was a priest in the cult of the emperor of Rome and later an official in the government.  He wrote a letter to the emperor, asking for advice:

 

“[According to them] their guilt or error was simply this -- on a fixed day they used to meet before dawn and recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god. So far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, they swore to keep from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and not to deny any trust money deposited with them when called upon to deliver it. This ceremony over, they used to depart and meet again to take food -- but it was of no special character, and entirely harmless. They also had ceased from this practice after the edict I issued -- by which, in accord with your orders, I forbade all secret societies. I then thought it the more needful to get at the facts behind their statements. Therefore I placed two women, called "deaconesses," under torture, but I found only a debased superstition carried to great lengths, so I postponed my examination, and immediately consulted you.”

(4) Suetonius (AD 69-140) was a Roman historian whose major work, Lives of Caesars, is an account of the lives of the first 12 Roman emperors.  Writing in 120, he made one statement that appears to be referring to Christ:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them from Rome."

Most likely he is referring to the expulsion of Jews, dated AD 48-50.  Thus, Christians would be in Rome shortly after the ministry of Christ in Palestine.

--------------

From where have I found this information?  Such is readily available from common sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Answers.com (you will find a link on my webpage, and it quotes several objective sources), books on Christian Apologetics, and I have been able to access the original documents in translation through the marvels of the Internet and a Google search.

I return to my original challenge.  If Jesus Christ is who he claimed to be, then we owe him our allegiance.  Why do some people work so hard to discredit his legitimacy?  Some, I believe, are on a true search for a true faith.  These are seeking proof, and maybe they are open to considering the weight of the evidence in Christ’s favor.  Many, I believe, are afraid of Jesus.  They fear his claim of authority over their lives.  It boils down to the basic Christian concept of Lordship.  These folk want to lord over their own lives.  But, if Jesus Christ is indeed God in the Flesh and the One And Only Savior, then they do so to their own detriment. 

I ask:  What is wrong with yielding your life to Jesus’ authority, if he is who he claimed to be?

---

posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 09.16.05 (8:07 am)

PD, with all due respect, there is no need for any debate about the fact that a person called Yeshua bin Joseph by his friends and family lived and taught many confounding and provocative teachings to his Jewish brethren. I am not even aware of a single atheist who disputes this fact.

My challenge to you is to produce some claim about Jesus that the can be differentiated from the claims of the Muslims regarding Muhammed or from the Buddhists regarding Buddha, etc. Both Muhammed and Buddha surely are real historical figures revered by their followers who made many supernatural claims regarding the object of their obsessive devotion. There are many less famous teachers in history for which there is first person historical accounts very similar to those found regarding Yeshua bin Joseph. In fact, things such as "virgin births" were common myths among the Greeks of Yeshua's day. Many scholars suspect the origin of the virgin birth story originates from these early Greek converts who would were conditioned to expect that a Messiah would neccessarily need to be born of virgin. There are many lesser Greek heroes who were said to have been conceived in a similar manner to that attributed to Yeshua bin Joseph.

Most of us never read the literature or the claims of other religions so we have this sense that somehow the claims of Christians regarding Christ are different than these other claims. They are not. In fact, the stories, the historical accounts and the logic used by their adherents to promote the superiority of their story over the other stories are nearly indentical.

Then, you march right into the worst kind of spiritual arrogance imaginable when you suggest that those of us who don't accept your version of how things really are that we must be "scared" of Jesus and of his "soveriegnty" over our lives. What a self-serving and ridiculous statement! Those of us who think similar to me might suggest that adherents to exclusive literal truth about ultimate questions are simply scared of losing the comfort of having it all explained to them in tidy little explanations no matter how absurd many of the explanations when considered in their full implications. This applies to literalists Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Raelians or any other supernatural explanation that must be accepted *on faith*.

Why must we accept anything *on faith*? I don't believe we do. In fact, I don't believe we should. Millions of people all over the world live healthy, happy and fulfilled lives and yet do not believe any of the claims of any exclusive religion.

Your only are showing, once again, that your literalists views have a threat at their base for why one must believe in YOUR God -- it is because, if you don't, you do so at your own "detriment". Your own "detriment" is just a nice way of saying that those who reject this truth will burn in hell for eternity.

Sorry PD... there simply is no "weight of evidence in Christ's favor" but exactly the opposite. There is no more and no less "weight of evidence" in Christ's favor than in favor of any other world religion.

You can claim that you know your version is true because you've had a personal experience that tells you it is but you can't suggest Christ is compelling on the basis of a simple preponderance of the evidence. On the former, I have to accept that you own your experience and I have no way to disprove or prove what you say you experience. On the latter, you are only giving ground to people believe as I do -- that Christianity is a great religion loosely based on the teachings of a very charasmatic teacher about whom many claims are made by his followers. This makes Jesus more similar to other religious figures from human history rather than special in some way these other figures are not.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 09.16.05 (8:19 am)

I'll respond to your great post in more depth at a later time. But, let me say that indeed, I have been told there is not one shred of extra-Biblical evidence that Jesus ever existed. I thought such was worth a thoughtful and studied response. Many, and I do not think you are included in this category, think Christianity to be simplistic and easily set aside with the most rudimentary argument. I disagree.

---

posted by: Kupov (reply)
post date: 09.16.05 (3:52 pm)

Reply to: PastorDave
Theres not much even when you pick at bones, i am sorry but "tacitus" is hardly a reliable source, i have his book "the annals of imperial rome" and anyone can see his bias.

Funny how Christians are quick to deny history and science UNLESS it helps them in some way, well i guess we are all like that.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 09.16.05 (4:03 pm)

Reply to: Kupov
Hello, good friend! It has been awhile since we have communicated.

I'm not offering infallible proof, just saying that a reasonable historical case can be made. Many skeptics, and I will include yourself, tend to offhandedly reject the historical evidence for Jesus Christ and the New Testament. I'm just trying to meet the challenge. And, I think I can do it!

Maybe I'll venture ove to your site and take a look....

---

posted by: VancouverBound (reply)
post date: 09.16.05 (4:05 pm)

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
goes into minute detail concerning each of these sources. The Mithraic cult myths parallels are worth the read alone.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 09.16.05 (4:11 pm)

Reply to: VancouverBound
I'm going to explore the Mithra cult, and have actually done some study previously. I understand it was mainly the religion of the Roman military, and some believe even Constantine was at heart a follower. But the case is also made that Mithra developed after Christianity, and actually borrowed some of its theology from the latter. From what I see, Chrstianity owes nothing to this religion.

I'll check out the link.

---

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 09.16.05 (5:45 pm)

Kupov.
Well Ok as you say Tacitus is not Historically reliable...what made you come to that conclusion.
What are your basing your deductions on?
KurtMaddox- Only Jesus Christ claimed to be God and That He will rise and was risen from the dead.
Thats basic difference between Christianity and all other religions and non religions.Christianity stands because Christ is alive.
How did you come to your conclusion.
Its been long since that you conveniently ask Christians to give the proof.
Let me put some questions to you instead.
Whats your belief? How did you come to that conclusion? Let that burden of proof rest on you.

---

posted by: graceshaker (reply)
post date: 09.16.05 (7:45 pm)

this is why its a matter of faith and not proof.

---

posted by: VancouverBound (reply)
post date: 09.17.05 (2:11 am)

Reply to: PastorDave

Mithra was said to have been born of a sun god (Ahura-Mazda) and a virgin human female. The similarities with Christianity only begin at this point, and there are tons of them. If any scholar has Christianity predating Mithraism, then I'd be curious to see their work because I've heard nothing but the converse. Mithraism isn't the only pagan faith Christianity is said to have "borrowed" beliefs. The very name "Easter" is derived from the pagan fertility goddess Ishtar (also the name a very bad movie - but I digress). It certainly wouldn't be the first time a religion absorbed mythology and beliefs from a predecessor.

Constantine may have dabbled in Mithraism, but he is generally credited with making Christianity the official religion of Rome ("In hoc signo vinces" - that phrase & the story behind it was drilled into my memory in school) You are correct that Mithraism was popular amongst the Roman army (according to what I've read on the subject)

None of this should matter to believers like yourself, or even to nonbelievers like me. I have my own doubts that a biblical Jesus existed, but so what? The sort of proof that would absolutely convince me otherwise doesn't exist itself. None of the examples you provided actually met Jesus or witnessed first-hand any miracles attributed to him - in fact, none of them could have been alive during what is generally agreed to have been Jesus' lifetime.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 09.18.05 (3:30 pm)

Reply to: graceshaker
I think I will probably never debate a person into heaven. My heart can convince a lot more people than my head. So, you make a great point.

---

posted by: preceptlady (reply)
post date: 09.19.05 (5:43 am)

The way I see it...we can debate who Jesus was and list all references both historical and scientific. However, the heart of the matter is what you believe. Jesus said "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved". Being saved from eternal hell.

If you don't believe in Jesus Christ then there are consequences. Simple as that. If we as Christians...followers of Christ..believe all of our life and we are wrong....what have we lost?

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 09.20.05 (12:22 pm)

Reply to: preceptlady
Your sense of conviction and certainty rings clearly.

My interest here is to reply to the one who feigns there is no evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth. I think I have given information worth considering. Then, maybe this person will also examine the message of Christ.

With most people, sharing a witness involves a process. You and I have to accept a person as they are and go from there. I feel we will prematurely turn off people when we blindside them with the "Hell" message. I think a decision to follow Christ is deserving of careful examination and consideration of the costs. I think I am showing respect for a person by communicating with careful words and allowing them some space. Not everyone takes my approach and I respect that. But, I think my approach is needed as part of the body of Christ.

Your Name:


Your Comment: