I am searching for PROOF (archalogical finds) of the cruxifiction of Jesus.?

Answer 1

These are some written ideas by noted historians & publications of the reality of Christ:

*** gt The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived ***

Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant argued: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.”

. “Dates before that year are listed as B.C., or before Christ,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. “Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord).”

Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

The New Encyclopædia Britannica thus concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

--AS TO ARCHAEOLOGY:

*** w97 6/15 p. 13 Jerusalem in Bible Times—What Does Archaeology Reveal? ***

A visit to the Israel Museum will show two unusual ossuaries. Biblical Archaeology Review explains: “Ossuaries were used primarily in the roughly one hundred years preceding the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. . . . The deceased was placed in a recess carved into the wall of a burial cave; after the flesh had decomposed, the bones were collected and placed in an ossuary—a container usually of decorated limestone.” The two on display were found in November 1990 in a burial cave. Archaeologist Zvi Greenhut reports: “The word . . . ‘Caiapha’ on two of the ossuaries in the tomb appears here for the first time in an archaeological context. It is probably the name of the family of the High Priest Caiaphas, mentioned . . . in the New Testament . . . It was from his house in Jerusalem that Jesus was delivered to the Roman procurator Pontius Pilatus.” One ossuary contained the bones of a man about 60 years old. Scholars speculate that these actually are the bones of Caiaphas. One scholar refers the findings to the time of Jesus: “A coin found in one of the other ossuaries was minted by Herod Agrippa (37-44 C.E.). The two Caiaphas ossuaries might be as early as the beginning of the century.”

*** w80 10/1 p. 9 Archaeology Confirms the Bible ***

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE GREEK SCRIPTURES

What about the Greek Scriptures, commonly known as the “New Testament”? Has archaeology confirmed the accuracy of this important part of the Bible? Whole books have been written showing that there is such confirmation. As early as 1890, French Bible scholar F. Vigouroux published a book of over 400 pages entitled “Le Nouveau Testament et les découvertes archéologiques modernes” (The New Testament and Modern Archaeological Discoveries). In it he supplied abundant proof supporting the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the letters contained in the Greek Scriptures. In 1895, W. M. Ramsay published his now classic book St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, providing much valuable material showing the authenticity of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

More recently, many other books and scholarly articles have been published showing how archaeology has shown the truthfulness of the entire Bible. In his book The Archaeology of the New Testament, first published in 1970, E. M. Blaiklock writes: “Striking vindications of biblical historiography have taught historians to respect the authority of both Old Testament and New, and to admire the accuracy, the deep concern for truth, and the inspired historical insight of the varied writers who gave the Bible its books of history.”

Yes, archaeology clearly backs up the Bible.

As to coins or artifacts concerning his impalement, at present I do no know of any confirmed, but indeed could exist.

--It would seem that of greater authority is history, since accuracy usually goes well in hand of any proofs that have validity.

--Where as archaeology just supplies an idea without written detail in most cases.

Answer 2

Very few historical events dealing with specific people in the iron age and earlier can ever be corroborated or refuted. Archaeology is a highly inexact science which leaves much to be interpreted by those involved in the investigation. The farther you go back in time, the harder it becomes to actually prove without a reasonable doubt that anything we think of as history actually happened. Even events in dark age europe are shrowded and based chiefly on guesswork and writings produced centuries later.

For all we know the "historical" carvings on Egyptian buildings are merely the work of a Bronze age big brother, editing history to prove himself unfailable. Historical evidence does prove some of these carvings are based on fact, but the specifics can never be proven, only inferred and given some frame of support. In science you can never prove anything, you can only disprove things and supply new ideas.

Answer 3

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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 Judæa, 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.
Annals 15 -44

Another early Christian leader, Tertullian (160-220AD), wrote to Roman officials about the unusual events surrounding the trial, death and resurrection of Jesus. Discussing a time when the Roman Senate actually considered classifying Jesus as a Roman deity due to the miraculous nature of his life, he wrote:

To go back to the origin of such laws there was an old decree that no one should be consecrated a god by an emperor till he had been approved by the senate. Marcus Aemilus followed this procedure in the case of a false god, Alburnus. This reinforces my argument that among you, godhead is conferred by human approval, if a god does not satisfy man he does not become a god, so according to this it is for man to show favor to God. Tiberius then in whose time the name of Christian came into the world, when a report of this doctrine reached him from Palestine where it originated, communicated to the senate making it clear to them that he favored the doctrine. The senate however, because they had not examined the doctrine for themselves, rejected it. But Tiberius stuck to his own view and threatened to execute any who accused the Christians (Apology 5, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson Anti-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, Hendrickon Publishers, Peabody, Massachusettes 1995, pp. 21-22).

try some of the references below, also....

Answer 4

Is there any PROOF (archalogical, as you put it, finds) of the death of Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? Yet we all accept these. Why ask for more evidence of Christ just because he's Christ? You are as enslaved to the idea of his being special as the most crazed fanatic.

Answer 5

The short answer is that there is no proof, nor even solid evidence, outside of religious texts, that Jesus even existed, let alone was crucified. Several answerers have tried to provide proof, and some of it may seem quite credible, but in fact it is fairly easily refutable.

To begin with, withluv asserts that the "Roman Government still has His trial documents on file as well as the order for His death." There has not been a "Roman Government" for more than 1600 years, so I am at a loss to understand what she is referring to.

As usual with these types of questions, someone always asserts that the Bible is all the proof one needs, and in this respect princess does not disappoint. The problem is that the Bible is a religious text, not a historical document, for all that some would try to make it out to be one. To say that the crucifixion is true because the Bible says so is no different than saying that Osiris was killed by his brother Seth and resurrected by his sister/wife Isis just because the Egyptian Book of the Dead says so. One cannot "prove" the truth of a religious story by citing the religious text in which that story is recounted.

Both aidan and THA note that the Roman historian Tacitus mentions a "Christ" as having been executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias. The problem here is that "Christ" is not a name but a title, being simply the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew title "Messiah," and there were a lot of people in Palestine at the time of Tiberias claiming to be the Messiah, the Christ. Since at the time one of the roles of the anticipated Messiah was to throw off the Roman yoke, any of these people who gathered enough of a following to be considered a threat to Roman order would most likely have been executed. The punishment reserved for such enemies of the Roman state was crucifixion.

THA also quotes Josephus, who is the only ancient ancient historian who specifically uses the name "Jesus." The problem here is that the particular passage from Josephus mentioned is widely considered by historians to be a much later insertion, i.e., a forgery.

Aidan goes on to quote Tertullian, whom she notes, and I would like to emphasize, was a Christian writer. Although she claims that Tertullian writes of the "Roman Senate actuallly consider[ing] classifying Jesus as a Roman deity due to the miraculous nature of his life," nothing in the passage she cites mentions this remarkable event, and I would defy her to produce anything in Tertullian's writing that does. It is ridiculous on its face that the Senate would even consider deifying the leader of a cult that the Romans were trying to suppress because of their anti-Roman activities.

Finally, THA's extensive answer begins by quoting a few sympathetic authors whose comments beg the question, i.e., they assume the very thing that they are trying to prove. In particular, the Durant quote suggests that the "powerful and appealing . . . personality" of Jesus was created by "simple men" in "one generation," when in fact the image of Jesus was created and refined over several generations, a process which continues to this day.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica citation mentions "these independent accounts [which] prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus." Unfortunately I cannot speak to these accounts because THA does not reproduce them in his answer. Also, the Britannica's assertion that "the historicity of Jesus . . . was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds" in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries is, in the case of its being the "first time," not true, and in the case of its being "inadequate" merely a matter of opinion.

As for the archaeological evidence that THA presents, proving that a person, place, or thing mentioned in a Bible story actually existed does not prove that the story itself is true. I can take someone into any mainstream bookstore and in a matter of minutes give him a whole cartload of books that deal with real events, real places, and in some cases real people, but in which the story line, and usually the central characters, are completely fictional. Finding the ossuary of Caiaphus, or the Pool of Siloam, as apparently recently happened, proves only that the writers of the Bible chose to put their characters into real places with real people.

All of this is in no way intended to dissuade anyone from his or her beliefs. As puppyfred indicates in his repsonse, the life and death of Jesus is a matter of faith. If one needs physical proof of the story in order to believe then one is bound to be disappointed, for not only is such proof truly lacking, except for some circumstantial, and widely disputed, instances, but all it would take would be one irrefutable piece of contrary evidence, which admittedly is unlikely to be forthcoming, to crush such tenuous belief. Faith is, by definition, a belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or even in the face of evidence to the contrary. If the story of the Jesus of faith fulfills you then stop looking for some kind of illusory "proof."

Answer 6

The Roman Government still has His trial documents on file as well as the order for His death. No one has ever disputed the death, only who He was.

Answer 7

well, good luck. That seach has been going on for centuries. There isn't even any proof that Jesus existed.

Answer 8

Good luck on that one, ha.

Answer 9

Good luck. Where is your faith, anyhow. That is what it is all about. Faith.

Answer 10

there is proof. the BIBLE. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!. how can you other answerers say there is no proff that Jesus exsisted. i cant believe you guys.