Where is there evidence fo Jesus outside the bible, Roman Records, writings about seeing him?

Question

I am having trouble believing a Jesus Christ actually existed in real life. I absolutely do not believe in the story from the bible which creates the myth of a miracle man. In Rome the people loved to write up long records about what happened. Who was put to death on crosses and why they were put to death. Personal accounts and governing accounts. Why so little evidence that Jesus existed outside the bible by actual citizens writing it up and passing it down? No history of a Pilate actually crucifying anyone named Jesus from Roman records? I am starting to believe that there was no person by that name at all. The Romans would have loved to write about a story like Jesus because it would have been an important historical fact about the leader of a cult. There seem to be no records I can find. Sense all the real life people claiming to be the messiah were put on the cross, wouldn't it have been beneficial to make up a character from pure fiction to be passed down?

Answer 1

The crucifixion of Jesus was unknown among the early church as late as the end of the second century. This was close to 176 years after the church would like us to believe the brutal end of its God occurred. It must be immediately pointed out that the modern church admitted the records of Bishop Irenaues (d.202) created a serious problem. They said of him: “Although of crucial importance in the development of the church’s theology. Irenaeus presents problems of considerable difficulty in regard to details about Jesus Christ”. Irenaeus is fondly described by the church hierarchy as the “depositary of primitive truth”, but he denied a virgin birth, and never mentioned a trail of Jesus Christ, said nothing of a crucifixion or resurrection and claimed Jesus declined towards old age.

Answer 2

You just need to do a little more historical searching. There are many writings from that time that mention Jesus including all the books of the new testament which were written by men other than Jesus. Many early historians and theologians speak of Him, and even Josepheus, a contemporary of Christ who wrote for the Romans, mentions Him in some detail. Very few people whether athiestic, or religious from around the world question whether or not Christ existed. Many would love to prove He did not exist, but the evidence is overwhelming.

Answer 3

Unfortunately there is no unimpeachable documentation outside Christian scripture attesting to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Whatever criminal records the Romans may have kept did not necessarily survive subsequent custody (as there is little interest in perpetually remembering executed criminals). The Judean career of Pontius Pilate is an historical fact, but the day-to-day details of his administration are not recorded.

People will point to the memoirs of Flavius Josephus, a self-styled Jewish historian who includes brief references to Jesus, but critics point out signs of tampering with his manuscript, possibly by the Christian historian Eusebius. (There is no way to be sure either way.) Other historical records verify the existence and claims of Christian groups who obviously existed, but not Jesus himself.

Jesus was not necessarily an important historical figure or "cult leader" during his earthly lifetime. There were many competing "cults" at the time (and "cult" was not a dirty word). He would have appeared to be one typical wandering rabbi among many. In fact there was enough concern among some second-generation Christian communities about Christ's existence that the gospel of Mark portrays Jesus urging his disciples to "tell no one" about his miracles to explain why the world at large did not seem to know about him.

It's the kings, generals and intellectuals whom history remembers. Millions of ordinary people who live good, meaningful, even influential lives, are forgotten. As whatever historical records of Jesus' existence may have existed have dissolved, his memory has been kept alive by his followers. So all you can do is contemplate the consequences of the fact of Jesus' existence. If he DIDN'T exist, Christianity is either pure fantasy, or Jesus is a metaphor. If he DID exist, it is very plausible that the physical evidence could easily be lost because it was not considered necessary to prove his existence at the time.

Did Socrates truly exist or was he a literary invention of Plato? Did Jesus exist or was he made-up by Christians? There is no historical way to know. It's up to you to decide for yourself.

Answer 4

the recent testomony of the bible isn't one e book, it extremely is extra than a number of books written at distinctive situations with distinctive authors. The books chosen for the recent testomony have been chosen from various tracts written over a century after Jesus loss of life. mutually as in basic terms the books all of us comprehend immediately type the the recent testomony various books written at or around the comparable time because of the fact the gospels have been rejected . as a results of this there are various documents and testaments that do comprise references to Jesus that are actually not in the Bible. there is likewise the Koran which mentions Jesus as a prophet and there are additionally some roman documents that point out him. on condition that the more suitable way of touching on thoughts replaced into in the oral custom and not written there are in basic terms some surely historic archives. the Gospel of Thomas replaced into no longer biblical, it extremely is a gnostic textual content cloth and whilst study alongside with many of the different gnostic texts refers to a Jesus it is unrecognizable because of the fact the comparable guy of the Gospels.

Answer 5

You can find evidence in the writings of the people who lived upon the American Continents. I have a book of scripture that talks about people on the American Continent. One part of the book talks about how Jesus Christ visited the people here after he was resurrected.

I would be more than happy to send you a copy. Would you like a copy?

Answer 6

Recent findings was the bone box with the inscriptions: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

Then there's the Turin Shroud displayed at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.

Answer 7

The history of Jesus Christ is more accurate than the history of Pilate or Caesar Augustus or Quirinius, governor of Syria. Jesus Christ definitely made his mark on that era of history. Even Josephus one of the historians thought Jesus to be the Messiah.

Answer 8

i advise you to look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html
also you may want to look at the talmud.

Answer 9

The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived--and that he performed miracles! Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119). If they document his death, then he had to have been born.
It needs to be understood that some of the writings were hostile to Christianity, but still documented the historical fact of Jesus.

JOSEPHUS-Jewish Historian

Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:
"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 ?63 )
Most scholars agree that the statements in italics were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, which means he had to have been born.

TACITUS-Gentile Historian

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 Jud桬 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

? Mischievous Superstition?.

Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was ?a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition?. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus? followers.
A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible. He wrote his history of Rome covering the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, that's 14-96 AD. He used earlier works by historians cross checking them with each other. He sought to verify his facts, something unusual in the writing of the time. He clearly has bias as he hated Domitian and wasn't a great fan of Tiberius, but this would have no bearing on mentions of Christ.
Some say that Tactitus also wrote about Hercules so his works are not valid. Read our response to this accusation.

Suetonius-Gentile Historian

Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv).

Phlegon-Gentile Historian

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21
"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...? Origen Against Celsus

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32).

References
There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.
So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born?
Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth:
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 by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Answer 10

There are none.