I didn't know there were SO many historical proofs that Jesus existed. Did you?

Question

For Example:
Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

There are many others. Can you name some of them?

Lok,
The Bible is a better sorce of knowledge than THAT.

JS,
Like This:
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

unhappykid,
You believe the debaters?

Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Quan,
Do you believe most schlars are fools?

Julia,
SELF-delusion is DANGEROUS.

U98,
Oh, so you NOW (how convenient) believe the CATHOLIC church.

Barbara,
A lot lot of people, far more important, and LONG before YOU came along thought He was "devine":
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Rico,
WOW! maybe you should consider being a historian. Yes?

Malak,
True.

RH,
I'd believe you; if you could explain this:
Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Cd,
Yeah, But thank God (for our benefit) we have among those that contributed to the New Testament that did witness seeing Jesus.

Ydunkya,
Ther are many, many writers:
Here's another:
Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Hannibal,
I doubt too.

San,
We CAN!

gastouret,
No. Jesus.

Craig,
Good. You go with the historians. I'll go with Christ.

Lok,
OK. I looked. Too many false claims to mention.
Eddas - Viking mythology.

Dewcoon,
WOW! Now THAT'S powerful. We are indded without excuse!

U98,

"You know who rules over liars don't you", you say?

Oh, Good for you. You "believe" in the devil; but not God.

The liar is the ONE who says, "there is no God".

Answer 1

The Jewish Talmud, compiled by the Pharisees (the enemies of Christ) in 73 AD which tells of Jesus Of Nazareth, who (they say) was an evil sorcerer who went around healing and doing miracles by the devil until he was arrested and executed by the Romans. And that his disciples stole his body and claimed he rose from the dead. Since only 40-45 years had passed, and many Jews alive at the time would have known that Jesus never lived, why would they make a story that he did?

The Roman historican Telamus in 53 AD attempts to argue that the darkness which covered the land of Israel at the time of Christ's crucifixion was a solar ecplise (even though it happened during the full moon, and solar ecplise only happen during the new moon). If there was no Jesus, which were historicians discrediting his death just 23 years later?

Also, it is NOT true that Josephus gave the father of Jesus as someone else. No where in his writing is a name given for Jesus' father. (His brother James is talked about, and his cousin John the Baptist, but not his father).

The "other name" comes from another Roman document which list the early Christians as followers of "Jesus the Son of Parthos". What is missed, because of the way the word "parthos" is transliterated (meaning copied over to English without translating it) is the "parthos" is the Greek word for "Virgin" used for the Virgin Mary in the New Testament. The document actually says "Jesus the Son of a Virgin" (and yes, the "a" is in the original document).

A recently uncovered letter that appears to have been written in 73AD has a father writting to his son from prison. He rights that just as the Greeks were punished for their oppositions to Plato, and the Jews had their temple destroyed because of their crucifiying Jesus, so the Romans would be punished if they executed him (the father) because Like Plato and Jesus, he was innocent. So appearantly the death of Jesus were common enough knowledge just 40 years later that people were using it as a methaphor of injustice. There had to have been someone to inspire the story.

By 67AD, the Emperor of Rome (Nero) was already banning the Christian religion. Something had to have inspired that religion to exploded to the point of attracting the Emperor's scorn in under 40 years.

But perhaps the most crucial piece of evidence is something that does NOT exist. When Christianity suddenly exploded on the scene in Jerusalem in the early 30's AD, it would have been very simple to stop it. Here are the Christians stated that Jesus, just a handful of years before, had conducted meetings with crowds that numbered into the thousands. Had that not happened, the people living right there where it did not happen would have known it. Here are the Christians claiming that Jesus enter Jerusalem on a donkey just days before the Passover feast where he was heralded as the King and greeting with sounds and palm leaves by thousands. Had that not happened, the people living there in Jerusalem would have know it. Here are the Christians claiming that a crucifxion happened during the Holy Week, in which the man to be executed was brough out before a crowd of hundreds abd offered to be released. Had that not happened, the people living in Jerusalem would have known it. Yet there is not a single account of a witness saying there was no Jesus.

All his enemies had to do during those first 20 years was to stand up before the people and call for a single witness to the Sermon on the Mount, or the Triumphant Enterance, or the Trial of Jesus. When no witness was found - and when the people who had been alive and living there when the events did not happened where reminded of that - Christianity would have died. It was about 20 years before the first non-Jews, or person outside of the area where Jesus lived, was converted. The Jews had 20 years to kill Christianity by simply reminding the people that Jesus did not exist. They never did that.

Rather Josephus (whether you accept the entire passage or not) saying he existed. The Jewish Pharisee (may have twisted the story) say he existed. The Roman historian (may have to tried to explain away the miralces) said he existed. The prison letter (may have treated him as a metaphor) claimed he existed. Not a single one says "there was no Jesus". Not a single witness survives against his existence.

Answer 2

Even the Catholics Church admits that the quote from Josephus is a fraud added by a monk copiest.
Can you accept the truth and be honest or are you going to keep spreading lies.

There is no possible way that Josephus would have wrote anything like that.

Your other quotes are either refering to the cults in third person or relating hear-say.
Quit claiming they are more than they are.
To do so is simply lying.
You know who rules over liars don't you,
and you know where liars go when they die.
Quit being a liar in Christs name.

I said EVEN the Catholic Church admit it because they have been extremely bold liars. For you to take it as any different is an obvious attempt to deliberately misconstrue what I said. That is another form of Lying.
You are a liar.


And then you post another LIE. Serapion's endorsement of jesus is another product of CRISTIAN LIARS.
It amazes me that people like you fail to realize the damage you cause your own cause by telling such Easily Refuted Lies

Mara Bar-Serapion
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/4/4mara95.html

EDIT to dewcoons below.
There is no writings saying that Charles Manson was not the Messiah, or that Jim Jones was not the Messiah either. There seems little sense in pointing out the obvious.

Kermit the Frog is the Messiah and the fact that nobody has refuted it proves it!
your argument is stupid.

edit to details
Plegon, wrote "On Marvels", containing some stories about ghosts, prophecies by heads, monstrous births (Siamese twins), hemaphrodites and giant skeletons.
Nice that you are using Weekly World News or its equivalent as a historical document.

As for Thallos.
Read this:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

Loser my butt, you are a brazen liar. That is the simple truth.

Answer 3

It is likely other writers added text as analysis of Josephus writings had different syntax. It is noteworthy Josephus makes no mention of Herod killing young jewish boys or an earthquake and storm when Jesus dies. This would have been noteworthy for a historian no? Historical Jesus, existed, supernatural Jesus, unlikely.

Noteworthy too is Josephus never converted and if he believed Jesus to be the Messiah, wouldn't he have devoted more than just a footnote to him?

Answer 4

There are no first hand verifiable proofs, just hearsay. Courts don't allow hearsay why should we?

Josephus is the perfect example. He wasn't alive when the supposed jesus was so all he would have known about him was hearsay. And Josephus's little mention is highly suspect at that. quite a few historian question if he even made mention and that it was added by somebody else years after wrote Antiquities.

Answer 5

HA! Josephus is the worst "historian" one could quote. He is known to have been sympathetic to Romans, and is known to have doctored history to favor both them and Christianity. Maybe you should read a little more about him before you take everything he says as literal truths. The majority of historians no longer use his works, as they are known to be biased.

Answer 6

Josephus was a historian born after the supposed death of Jesus. His account of Jesus is disputed as to its authenticity. It doesn't qualify as proof of Jesus's existence, only proof that in 93 CE he published 'Antiquities of the Jews' in which the name Jesus is mentioned twice. The account that you cite is thought by most historians to be a fake. Added posthumously by christian scholars who came after him.

Answer 7

I highly doubt the largest religion on earth was created by someone who did not exist. Whether he was the son of god, whether he was the prophet that was foretold in the Talmud, etc I don't know, but I am pretty sure that someone along the name of Jesus did exist and was the creator of Christianity. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter, if you're Christian then beleif is enough. If you're not Christian then who cares (whether he existed or not)?

Answer 8

I have always thought Jesus of Nazareth was a human being who walked this earth, it's just that I do not believe him to be divine. The pedestal came years after his death.

Answer 9

Anyone can write such stories years afterward. Look at all the fictional novels around nowadays, if they were to put on a non-fiction label, they will be laughed at or sued. We can believe the teachings of Jesus, however accurate they were.

Answer 10

http://www.JesusNeverExisted.com

EDIT: Didn't even bother to look at the site did you? No, I didn't think so. It refutes your unfounded claims.

So the bible is a better source of knowledge eh? How is it a better source of knowledge than the Eddas? Explain that if you will. Well what makes Middles Eastern mythology better than Norse? At least we don't take it all literally like you do yours, see that's where you get into trouble.