Proof of Jesus?

[Sparkey]

It seems as if the "atheist friend" is curious about the historicity of Jesus. Why play games and start making rules about historical records that are "allowed" and "disallowed"? Even after all the games, the fact remains: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is sufficient proof (some might say, "abundant proof").

It's an age-old device. If you can't challenge the truth (think politics) - then challenge the source.
It doesn't matter if your challenge is relevant as long as it can be used to cast doubt on the truth.

 

[eng35]

No offence intended but I think there is another more likely option:
4) Evolution of the tales / Chinese whispers (with perhaps a little wishful-thinking added for good measure). Stories became myth, myth becomes legend. These were then written down long after the events. This explains the varying and contradictory versions.

Actually, this is my personal reasoning that one or more Jesus-like apocalyptic preachers probably did exist. It also makes the resurrection and the other laughable parts like the exorcism-pigs less likely. Many good myths have a resurrection or two. The gospels have many.

No offense taken. You're right, sorry I neglected that option. I'm going to respond to your second paragraph first, then I will go back and state why I find the myth option not very likely.

I'm not sure I understand how the development of myths relates to other Jesus-like apocalyptic preachers. Please explain further? I am very much aware that there were other Jesus-like apocalyptic preachers so I'm not disputing that statement, but again, I do not see how the development of myth ties into Jesus-like apocalyptic preachers. It appears that those other preachers were reported as failing to perform miracles, at least by Josephus. If you are referring to other Jesus-like preachers please expound. Also, could you provide me with an example of a myth, or another myth if the Jesus story is indeed a myth, that has a bodily resurrection? I am aware of stories that involve resurrection but none that involve bodily resurrection. I am not necessarily doubting your claim, I am simply curious. My lack of knowledge in this area could very well be because I am only familiar with Greek/Roman mythology.

Ok, on to state why I don't believe the gospels account of the resurrection to be a myth. I imagine you are familiar with the arguments on both side of the myth claim so this probably won't mean anything to you, but I'll post my beliefs in case you haven't heard reasons why many believe it wasn't a myth, myself included. There wouldn't have been enough time for a myth to develop. Many scholars believe Mark was written sometime around 65 A.D. and even those who don't would acknowledge that Paul's letters, which mention the cross and resurrection extensively, were written at least that early. It seems that any other myth has taken many generations to develop, not less than one. There still would have been eyewitnesses alive when the gospel of Mark would have been written, that could have discredited the accounts. I guess one could argue that some eyewitnesses tried to discredit this myth, but there don't seem to be any records of such claims, at least that I'm aware of. What would cause this myth to develop so quickly compared to other myths?

Also, as mentioned in my first post, having women as the first eyewitnesses seems to be a detail that would have been edited if the story of the resurrection was mythologized. Why would a myth develop that would include eyewitnesses who were considered unreliable at the time the myth was developed?

The last major reason I don't see it possible for the myth option to be likely is because the gospels were copied numerous times and yet the gospels coincide quite nicely. There are little discrepancies here and there, but if the story of Jesus and his resurrection were mythologized, why wouldn't we have recovered manuscripts of the original gospels that were vastly different from each other? If the gospels supernatural events were all mythologized, why wouldn't eyewitnesses have taken those documents and further mythologized them?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Nope, you are wrong. You can't "PROVE" they were first hand accounts. They were written at LEAST fourty years after Christ was even on earth.)

This is circular reasoning nonsense that you can expect from skeptics and atheists. The strongest and consistent evidence is that a all the NT was written before 70 AD, and Luke was written about 41 AD to the Jewish high priest Theophilus.

Steven Avery

 

[Grazer]

Hi,

This is circular reasoning nonsense that you can expect from skeptics and atheists. The strongest and consistent evidence is that a all the NT was written before 70 AD, and Luke was written about 41 AD to the Jewish high priest Theophilus.

Steven Avery

Don't see how that's a circular argument, he's used the dates generally used by historians and scholars

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

There are several other letters concurrent with Jesus and the Apostles. They are not accepted as authentic by all; but then Jesus Himself is not accepted as authentic. Examples are:

• The Letters of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
• The Letter of King Abgar to Jesus
• The Epistle of Thaddeus

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0810.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01042c.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/addai_2_text.htm
There are other letter as well, such as Seneca's, but I am sure even these ones will be denied as authentic. Once a person is trying deliberately to find fault in an argument it is almost impossible to turn them around.Tri

One fascinating little known evidence from the 1st century is the Nazarene Inscription. While the name is a bit of a misnomer (we do not know where it was originally written, Nazareth was the provenance of the person who made it public), the actual text shows a highly unusual Roman concern for .. removing a body from a tomb, at the penalty of capital punishment. No such penalty is known for Roman rule anywhere. Afaik, there is not contested as to authenticity, although the import can be challenged.

The three letters you mention have various strengths and weaknesses. I would enjoy looking at each one individually, perhaps on a separate thread on early archaeological and text claims related to the life of Jesus.

There are also some interesting indications involving Philo of Alexandria. Those I would only consider as research projects.

Josephus strongly supports NT historicity. The simplest example is the section about John the Baptist, and the section about James, the brother of Jesus, who was executed by the Sanhedrin, which illegal execution created quite a stir. While the "Jesus..Messiah" quote has some variation, and therefore is a lesser evidence and needs careful use, these other sections are rather amazing. (I'm doing the James account from memory, it is either accurate for very close, the date was about 60 AD, the charge was lawlessness, and this would quite assuredly, but not necessarily provably, be the brother of Jesus who was crucified). James Tabor has this on his sight, from the days before he went a bit flaky.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Don't see how that's a circular argument, he's used the dates generally used by historians and scholars

The late post 70-AD dates are simply incompatible with the New Testament, and a proper historical sense. (The skeptics try to go even later.) They go with epistle forgery theories that no evangelical should accept, which already claim the New Testament is not the actual writings represented. And the evidence for these forgery theories is, to be gratious to their position, ultra-flimsy.

The New Testament actually has a careful net of connections that easily proves early dating, if you accept the letters as what they purport to be. e.g. The connections of Peter with the apostles leads to the connections of Peter with Paul. Peter is closely connected to Mark (they almost surely preached in Rome around 40 AD) while Luke traveled with Paul in the period leading up to Acts. A verse in Luke's gospel is referred to as scripture in Paul's second letter to Timothy. Peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture. All before 70 AD. Beyond all that, a careful reading of Luke's Prologue shows that he wrote very early, and almost surely to the high priest Theophilus. (Luke was a Hebrew, the idea he was a Gentile is simply wrong.)

Please, as an example read William Mitchell Ramsay on the historical savvy of Luke (which is the type of reason why they do not want the New Testament in the mix), and your agreeing to disallow the NT is a conceptual error. Luke is the consummate and accurate historian, yes even including the couple of attempted harumphs, which are fascinating studies on their own right. Luke gets dozens of complex places, and titles and geography, and history, absolutely right. For this degree of accuracy, he had to live in that early period. Again, read, or at least skim, Ramsay. (You can look for the response on that issue in my posts on the old IIDB-FRDB forum to see how the skeptics simply will not relate to that discussion with integrity and honesty. They do know how to divert and handwave and harumph.)

Also, there are fine scholars who have torn apart the late dating scenario. The Redating book by John Arthur Thomas Robinson stands strong and no refutation has been given. However, much more can be added to his studies, additional support from other scholars, and then the nice icing of recognizing who is Theophilus. (Which was understood in the 1700s and 1800s by Hase and Michaelis and Paley and others.)

Beyond that, the skeptics try to have it both ways. They appeal to dubious pseudo-consensus scholarship up to a point that they find convenient (e.g. late dating, the Pastorals being a forgery, 2 Peter being a forgery) and then decry that same scholarship when it rejects the mythicist argument.

You really have to try to understand the tricks, if you want to play in that ballpark .

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Grazer]

Hi,

The late post 70-AD dates are simply incompatible with the New Testament, and a proper historical sense. (The skeptics try to go even later.) They go with epistle forgery theories that no evangelical should accept, which already claim the New Testament is not the actual writings represented. And the evidence for these forgery theories is, to be gratious to their position, ultra-flimsy.

The New Testament actually has a careful net of connections that easily proves early dating, if you accept the letters as what they purport to be. e.g. The connections of Peter with the apostles leads to the connections of Peter with Paul. Peter is closely connected to Mark (they almost surely preached in Rome around 40 AD) while Luke traveled with Paul in the period leading up to Acts. Beyond all that, a careful reading of Luke's Prologue shows that he wrote very early, and almost surely to the high priest Theophilus. (Luke was a Hebrew, the idea he was a Gentile is simply wrong.)

Please, as an example read William Mitchell Ramsay on the historical savvy of Luke (which is the type of reason why they do not want the New Testament in the mix), and your agreeing to disallow the NT is a conceptual error. Luke is the consummate and accurate historian, yes even including the couple of attempted harumphs, which are fascinating studies on their own right. Luke gets dozens of complex places, and titles and geography, and history, absolutely right. For this degree of accuracy, he had to live in that early period. Again, read, or at least skim, Ramsay. (You can look for the response on that issue in my posts on the old IIDB-FRDB forum to see how the skeptics simply will not relate to that discussion with integrity and honesty. They do know how to divert and handwave and harumph.)

Also, there are fine scholars who have torn apart the late dating scenario. The Redating book by John Arthur Thomas Robinson stands strong and no refutation has been given. However, much more can be added to his studies, additional support from other scholars, and then the nice icing of recognizing who is Theophilus. (Which was understood in the 1700s and 1800s by Hase and Michaelis and Paley and others.)

Beyond that, the skeptics try to have it both ways. They appeal to dubious pseudo-consensus scholarship up to a point that they find convenient (e.g. late dating, the Pastorals being a forgery, 2 Peter being a forgery) and then decry that same scholarship when it rejects the mythicist argument.

You really have to try to understand the tricks, if you want to play in that ballpark .

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

I go with what I've read from a variety of sources, Christian and otherwise. I didn't say whether they were right or wrong, just that they were the figures generally accepted by historians and scholars; Christian and otherwise.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I go with what I've read from a variety of sources, Christian and otherwise. I didn't say whether they were right or wrong, just that they were the figures generally accepted by historians and scholars; Christian and otherwise.

Right and wrong is important, and the crux of the matter. Evangelicals should go with theories that are consistent with the Bible, and should be very cautious in considering theories that claim the Bible is false and forgery, even if the theories are given by men proclaimed or self-proclaimed to be Christians.

Those who have weak faith or unbelief develop theories (like the Pastoral and 2 Peter forgery theory) that reflects not historical reality, not New Testament and historical consistency, but their own confusions and even their own unbelief.

Such false theories can then be claimed to be the academy "consensus" even when they are logically and intellectually ultra-weak. And this includes the late dating theories, as I showed you above.e g. by the Ramsay study of the Lukan historicity quotient.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Grazer]

Hi,

Right and wrong is important, and the crux of the matter. Evangelicals should go with theories that are consistent with the Bible, and should be very cautious in considering theories that claim the Bible is false and forgery, even if the theories are given by men proclaimed or self-proclaimed to be Christians.

Those who have weak faith or unbelief develop theories (like the Pastoral and 2 Peter forgery theory) that reflects not historical reality, not New Testament and historical consistency, but their own confusions.

Such false theories can then be claimed to be the "consensus" even when they are ultra-weak. And this includes the late dating theories, as I showed you above.e g. by the Ramsay study of the Lukan historicity quotient.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Since the Bible doesn't specify when it was written and I haven't claimed any forgery, I'm not sure what the point of that was.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Since the Bible doesn't specify when it was written and I haven't claimed any forgery, I'm not sure what the point of that was.

The majority of scholars who give you the late dating scenario also claim the forgery scenario. Even purported Christians, like Bruce Metzger (1914-2007).

If you accept late dating because of the majority of scholars blah blah..then consistently you will accept their false forgery theory.

The late dating scenarios are inconsistent with the New Testament, they are false, and they are a trap.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Agape]

I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him?

MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.

[video=youtube;zrRQqYGf4O0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0[/video]


then go to part 2/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqlFkGaDV_M
3/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qUcXXbde4w
4/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGb3pOq8ihc

Check out this site too http://www.thedevineevidence.com/

 

[Grazer]

Hi,

The majority of scholars who give you the late dating scenario also claim the forgery scenario. Even purported Christians, like Bruce Metzger (1914-2007).

If you accept late dating because of the majority of scholars blah blah..then consistently you will accept their false forgery theory.

The late dating scenarios are inconsistent with the New Testament, they are false, and they are a trap.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

I'm checking with an historian I've used in the past to see what he says

 

[Tri Unity]

The three letters you mention have various strengths and weaknesses. I would enjoy looking at each one individually, perhaps on a separate thread on early archaeological and text claims related to the life of Jesus.

Hi Steven,

The letters of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius; the Letter of King Abgar to Jesus; and the Epistle of Thaddeus, are each a fascinating piece of 1st century activity outside of the bible. There are many other works as well, and each throw a valuable insight into the culture and history at work. The biggest difficulty is unraveling corruptions to the text. The sect that associated with Simon Magus were prolific at altering texts from christians. Not only the works that are less known, such as Abgar's, but also works from Clement and Ignatius as well. Nothing was sacred. The bible was even altered where opportunity availed - particularly with versions of Aquila and Theodotion. A great "restoration" work was taking place on the "Temple Scroll" after Titus had taken the scrolls from the Temple in 70 AD. This led Rabbi Akiba to bring about a new temple scroll from the Masoretes, which was a work in progress for the next 500 years; and since Jerome's vulgate it had became a part of Christian tradition replacing the Septuagint. Rufinus, too, gives copius examples of how christian authors were targeted by gnostics and heretics to alter the intended teachings in their writings. Rufinus shows how Origen, Pamphilius and Jerome each had their writings altered to reflect popular heresy's of the Valentinians, Arians or other heretics. Many other writings of 3rd century giant's, such as Gregory Thaumaturgus, had their writings altered to reflect Nicene theology - so this practice eventually became adopted by some christians too.

I would be happy to discuss these subjects further on another thread.

God Bless

 

[Free]

Hi,

Right and wrong is important, and the crux of the matter. Evangelicals should go with theories that are consistent with the Bible, and should be very cautious in considering theories that claim the Bible is false and forgery, even if the theories are given by men proclaimed or self-proclaimed to be Christians.

Those who have weak faith or unbelief develop theories (like the Pastoral and 2 Peter forgery theory) that reflects not historical reality, not New Testament and historical consistency, but their own confusions and even their own unbelief.

Such false theories can then be claimed to be the academy "consensus" even when they are logically and intellectually ultra-weak. And this includes the late dating theories, as I showed you above.e g. by the Ramsay study of the Lukan historicity quotient.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Most scholars seem to agree that the NT books were completed by 100 AD. There is nothing wrong with those dates.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Most scholars seem to agree that the NT books were completed by 100 AD. There is nothing wrong with those dates.

Leaving aside the Revelation debate for now, what book was close to 100 AD ?

Let's say that Mark is said to have written his Gospel at 95 AD.

Then the prophecies of the Temple destruction were written decades after the event, and nobody can say that post-facto prophecy, about what was said 65 years earlier, has any significance.

Plus Mark was walking with Peter in Rome about 40 AD, estimating about 30 years old. So he waited till he was 85 to write the Gospel.

These types of problems abound.
Were the eyewitnesses of Luke giving accounts from 60 years earlier ?

When was 2 Peter written, when Peter referred to Pauls letters as scripture.

When was 2 Timothy written, when Paul referred to a verse from Luke as scripture . If you say Luke was written at 90 AD, then 2 Timothy was later.

This type of simple consistency study is why Redating the New Testament concluded the NT was finished before 70 AD.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Tri Unity]

This type of simple consistency study is why Redating the New Testament concluded the NT was finished before 70 AD.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Well said Steven.

God Bless

 

[Free]

Hi,

Leaving aside the Revelation debate for now, what book was close to 100 AD ?

Let's say that Mark is said to have written his Gospel at 95 AD.

Then the prophecies of the Temple destruction were written decades after the event, and nobody can say that post-facto prophecy, about what was said 65 years earlier, has any significance.

Plus Mark was walking with Peter in Rome about 40 AD, estimating about 30 years old. So he waited till he was 85 to write the Gospel.

These types of problems abound.
Were the eyewitnesses of Luke giving accounts from 60 years earlier ?

When was 2 Peter written, when Peter referred to Pauls letters as scripture.

When was 2 Timothy written, when Paul referred to a verse from Luke as scripture . If you say Luke was written at 90 AD, then 2 Timothy was later.

This type of simple consistency study is why Redating the New Testament concluded the NT was finished before 70 AD.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

At least attempt to use some generally accepted dates instead of setting up a straw man:

http://www.newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html

http://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-hundreds-years-after-christ

There really is nothing wrong with those dates.

 

[Tri Unity]

At least attempt to use some generally accepted dates instead of setting up a straw man... There really is nothing wrong with those dates.

How did Steven create a straw man? What he stated was mostly in agreement with the dates you have suggested... he said "before 70 AD", which is also what your dates are suggesting.

The connections of Peter with the apostles leads to the connections of Peter with Paul. Peter is closely connected to Mark (they almost surely preached in Rome around 40 AD) while Luke traveled with Paul in the period leading up to Acts. A verse in Luke's gospel is referred to as scripture in Paul's second letter to Timothy. Peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture. All before 70 AD. Beyond all that, a careful reading of Luke's Prologue shows that he wrote very early, and almost surely to the high priest Theophilus.

What is the argument here? You seem to be agreeing with Steven yet you have called his argument straw man... Steven has denied the later dates (post 70 AD), which is also agreed in the dates you have shown. What is your point?

God Bless

 

[Free]

How did Steven create a straw man? What he stated was mostly in agreement with the dates you have suggested... he said "before 70 AD", which is also what your dates are suggesting.



What is the argument here? You seem to be agreeing with Steven yet you have called his argument straw man... Steven has denied the later dates (post 70 AD), which is also agreed in the dates you have shown. What is your point?

God Bless

You need to reread what I was addressing.

 

[Tri Unity]

You need to reread what I was addressing.

Or you need to be less obscure before labelling straw man so frequently. Perhaps you don't understand what straw man means?

God Bless