Chrsitians accept Jesus on faith, yet when you tell them there's no proof of Jesus, they say yes there is?

Question

So which is it Christians? If there is any shred of evidence that Jesus actually lived, then you aren't taking it on faith.

But that is not something you need to worry about, since not a single historian who lived at the time of Christ mentions him. Even the new testament was written after he supposedly lived.

Answer 1

I don't believe Jesus ever existed because there is no contemporary evidence of his existence (that is, nothing about him recorded during his alleged life)--the 'soonest' evidence we have is from Saul of Tarsus, who wrote about Jesus at LEAST 40 years after his alleged death.

Not only that, but Saul writes with NO knowledge of most of the alleged events of Jesus's life that are mentioned in the Gospels (which came long after Saul's writings (about 80,000 words), keep in mind). He mentions only the last bits about Jesus--him being crucified and rising up to heaven. However, Saul makes it quite clear that he is not talking about an earthly Jesus, but a mythical one, and places the crucifixion etc. in a mythical realm, not earth. The closest he comes to mentioning a Jesus who 'walked among us' is when he mentions that (paraphrasing, bear with me) 'if Jesus lived on earth, he would not be a priest' or something like that.

Yup--that is how shaky the foundation is. Saul's account is the strongest (because his account comes chronologically closest to Jesus's alleged death) link between Jesus's alleged life and the gospels which go into great detail about it. It's the strongest much in the same way that molten lead is the most refreshing drink to be found on Venus.

So basically, we got Saul's stuff, which strongly clashes with the gospels it preceded, and then we've got nothing for several years after that (next account is the Gospel of Mark (which is attributed to Mark but is actually an anonymous work; further supporting this is the fact that there is a consensus that this gospel was written in the 60s or 70s CE--there's no way someone alive during Jesus's alleged life would still be alive in those times). Then suddenly we have all kinds of details about Jesus's life that just seem to pop up out of nowhere. Anyone looking at this objectively would quickly come to the very fair conclusion that the writers of the gospels were 'storytelling' as opposed to recording history when they wrote them. Their goal was to convert people, not to document history, which is why they were writing _gospels_ in the first place.

Now, taking all of that into consideration...is it any wonder that, when taking everything into consideration, one would be quite skeptical of the earthly existence of Jesus Christ as the Bible describes him (it's not that he COULDN'T have existed, but when you take a step back and look at everything objectively, it's quite obvious that it is extremely unlikely)?

P.S. Theologians generally agree that the other three gospels in the Bible are clearly derived from Mark, which is why I didn't mention them specifically.

Answer 2

All four gospels are written from eyewitness accounts, Matthew was a disciple, John was a disciple, Mark was taught by Simon Peter, a disciple, and Luke was taught by the apostle Paul, an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. Not only this but the New Testament is the most historically valid ancient document of all time. Do you believe Julius Cesar existed? If you do you must believe Christ existed because there is more written evidence about him. By your view why do you believe anything in history, since the New Testament is unrivaled by other ancient documents in validity. There is evidence of Christ by many other sources as well, some that are written in answers above me. Roman, Jewish, and other early Christian sources. If you really look into it, you will find many sources saying a man named Jesus of Nazareth really existed. The question is what will you do with Him? By the way, almost all historians accept Jesus Christ existed as do most atheist. God bless.

Answer 3

some points perhaps to consider..

-The 4 gospels were written prior to the year 100. The gospel of mark within a few decades at most.
-The New testament has the earliest and the largest manuscript evidence of any ancient history by leaps and bounds
-Josephus mentions an account of Jesus, an account of James, an extensive account of John the Baptist and confirms other historical events of the period
-Tacitus accounts the Christian movement
-Suetonious' account
-Cassius' Dio's account
-Early enemies of the Christians, such as those engaging in debates(Eg Justin Martyr and Trypho), never doubt the historical existence of Jesus.
-There is never a doubt to the historicity in the early centuries.
-There is no mention of Jesus' upbringing in Gospels, hence there was an aversion of the Christian writers to add mythical elements.
-Historical sites of the New Testament are correctly identified, even when some modern historians believed they didn't exist, for example the pool of siloam
-The letter writers such as Paul hardly add parables or deep sayings to their letters, an indication they were not the authors

.....

Answer 4

The shred of evidence is within every believing person's heart. The healing, the joy, peace, patience, forgiveness of others. It is not inane, or insane, but it is a spark much like when you first fall in love and you know that you are longing to be together with your sweetheart. It is there, it is real, and you never have to walk alone when the Savior dwells within your heart. I pray that some day you will be able to have this very beautiful experience with the Creator. I pray that the shield you use to keep Him out will melt and you can look inward and know who you are with Him. I really don't know how to explain it but it is quite lovely. Mmm

Answer 5

Secular History of Jesus
There is the writing, for example of "Flavius Josephus" commissioned by the Romans to write a "history" of their conquests. Being he was commissioned by the Romans he could not cover Jesus, in depth, because they wanted to hear about themselves, not some supposed Messiah. The fact that he wrote anything about Jesus is actually a wonder to most scholars and that the Romans left the information in the history.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html
Here is another source of information:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

Answer 6

no what we take on faith is that he was God in human body not that he was a real person

there is actually proof that he did live as it is written in the bible, it was his trial sentence written by the scribe, it talks about where he was born and that he was chosen to die over a criminal.

so we have proof that he did exist but we take it on faith that he was God

and so what if it was written after he lived bibliographies on Abe Lincoln were written after he died and we know he lived just because the official text came later does not mean anything

Answer 7

Wellll, you may want to reconsider your statement that no historian ever acknowledged Christ's existence. Please read the following:

"Nero fastened the guilt . . . 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 . . . 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. . . ."

Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82
Written by Tacitus in 64 A.D.


"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind"
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

This was written by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan and mention Christ by name.

And perhaps the most compelling is the following, written by Josephus a first century Jewish historian

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared"
Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.

And last of many more that I could list is from the Babylonian Talmud. In this Jesus is called Yeshu, which is how his name was pronounced in Hebrew and the time. You will also see that the passage says he was hanged, this served as a synonym for crucified, at that time.

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy"
The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

So, in reference to your point about not worrying, I don't! If you were to actually do some research you would find that there is an abundance of writtings either at the time of Christ our saviour or shortly thereafter proving his existence. Now you may either believe in him as the saviour or not, that's up to you. You can not, however, deny his existence.

May I ask, then, since there were no writings about dinosaurs for THOUSANDS of years after their deaths, are we to assume that they didn't exist?

Answer 8

There is significant legal and historical documentation that Jesus Christ existed. The atheist then whips out conspiracy theory and deems those legal and historical sources corrupted and or misinterpreted.

Is it unusual for biographies of historical figures to be written AFTER they lived? That would be no. If you discount every historical biography for the reason you just stated, then a huge part of history would be wiped out.

Answer 9

The Roman historian Josephus, who had no "axe to grind" for or against Christianity , actually wrote that their WAS a genuine historical figure at that time.

Answer 10

There is proof of Jesus living. i have faith that he is the Son of God. That is the difference.This answers your long and uninformed question.

Not a single Historian?They are Human. The ones that wrote about Jesus was inspired by God.

Answer 11

We accept all the details of Jesus life, death, and resurrection on faith, and accept by faith that He was who He said He was: Messiah.

But the fact that He existed is recorded by secular historians.