We know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in all the ancient world.
Secular Authorities on Jesus' Historicity:
(By secular I mean "pagan" - non-Christian, non-Jewish, and generally anti-Christian. Many ancient secular writers mention Jesus and the movement He birthed. The fact that they are usually antagonistic to Christianity makes them especially good witnesses, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events surrounding a religious leader and His following, which they disdain.)
[SIZE=4]1) Cornelius Tacitus
Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for this moral "integrity and essential goodness." Tacitus's most acclaimed works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals cover the period from Augustus's death in A.D. 14 to that of Nero in A.D. 68, while Histories begin after Nero's death and proceeded to that of Domitian in A.D. 96.
Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome. His misspelling of Christ (Christus) was a common error made by pagan writers. Says Tacitus:
"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome." (Annals XV, 44)
A possible allusion to Jesus' resurrection is in this account. It is distinctly possible, that, when Tacitus adds that "A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out," he is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that Christ who had been crucified had risen from the dead.
Another interesting sidelight about this passage from Tacitus: Pilate is not mentioned in any other pagan document which has come down to us.... And it may be regarded as an instance of the irony of history that the only surviving reference to him in a pagan writer mentions him because of the sentence fo death which he passed upon Christ. For a moment Tacitus joins hands with the ancient Christian creed: "...suffered under Pontius Pilate."
Note that Tacitus's comments provide us with testimony by the leading Roman historian of his day, "independent confirmation that Jesus lived and was formally executed in Judaea in the reign of Tiberius and during Pilate's office as procurator (technically still a prefect, A.D. 26-36). That may not seem like much, but it is actually surprisingly useful in discounting two different theories which are sometimes advanced: first, that Jesus of Nazereth never existed; and secondly, that he did not die by the duly administered Roman death penalty."
2) Lucian of Samosata
3) Suetonius
4) Pliny the Younger
5) Thallus
6) Phlegon
7) Mara Bar-Serapion
Jewish References to Jesus' historicity:
1) The Babylonian Tulmud
Christian Sources for Jesus' Historicity (Post-Apostolic Writers):
1) Clement of Rome
2) Ignatiius
3) Quadratus
4) The Epistle of Barnabas
5) Aristides
6) Justin Martyr
7) Hegesippus
Additional Sources for Christianity:
1) Trajan
2) Macrobius
3) Hadrian
4) Antoninus Pius
5) Marcus Aurelius
6) Juvenal
7) Seneca
8) Hierocles
Last edited by ushomefree on Jul 17th, 2007 at 12:04 AM
For as many sources you can bring up supporting christ,you can bring up just as many that is against a historic Jesus.Early Christianity was so diverse it's hard to pin point anything 100% conclusive.Celsus even refered to many aspects as Christ life as pale imitations of older prophets from the past.That's why I brought up the conclusion that Christ himself was an little known revolutionary who later was given mythical motifs from several traditions and became the figure head of Christianity.Even fair and balanced examinations of early Christianity can not say for sure a lot about Christ, a historic Christ.These ideas I have brought up are nothing new and have been looked at very many times.
The Christian faith is founded on Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Before the New Testament gospels were even written, the early Christian leaders declared their belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus through a statement of belief known as a creed. The earliest record of the Christian creed is presented by Paul and found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8:
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”
One of the biggest arguments against the Christian faith is that the resurrection story is a myth that developed over as much as a century after Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross. It was originally thought that the gospel accounts were written as much as 100 years after Jesus walked the earth. Recent scholarship in manuscript reliability and textual criticism now places the gospels at 30 to 50 years after Jesus. Why is the above passage so important? Because Biblical scholars, using the historical records of Paul and his early travels to Damascus and Jerusalem, place the above scripture at about 35 A.D., just 3 to 5 years after the death of Jesus Christ. This is dramatic, because those same scholars would hold that this basic creed for the Christian faith developed far too quickly for a myth to develop and distort the historical record of the resurrection.
Since the foundation of the Christian Faith is Jesus Christ and His resurrection, then the historical veracity of His life, death and resurrection are tantamount. For as Paul declared later in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:14-17):
“And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”
The majority of sources provided in my previous message supporting the historical Jesus were "non-Christian." Your counter argument is baseless--completely false. It does not take all day to recognize sunshine, and I am at complete odds with people that deny the historical Jesus. Do your research, please. No pun intended.
That is the whole point; its ridiculous, and yet, people believed!
The resurrection of Jesus is the most fantastic event Christianity has ever asked the world to take seriously. If it isn't true, all of the claims of Jesus are irrelevant. If it is true, it substantiates all of Jesus' claims, and no other event in history has more significance.
Read the accounts of the resurrection; skeptics were everywhere. Jesus' disciples--especialy Thomas--didn't expect to see him. Jesus' enemies didn't want to see him, and offered alternate--though easily refuted--explanations for the empty tomb.
Let's look at two of those explanations:
1) Jesus' resurrection was just wishful thinking on part of his disciples. They developed this myth to substantiate their claims.
Some modern critics speculate that the resurrection appearances were the disciples' hallucinations, which occured because they worked themselves into a hysteria hoping that Jesus would come back from the dead. But that explanation doesn't take into account the disciples' overall misunderstanding of Jesus' resurrection predictions (John 16:17-18).
After Jesus' death, the disciples didn't sit in anticipation of the resurrection. When Jesus appeared to most of them, they were hiding out in fear of the authorities (verses 19-20), not boldly proclaiming that their leader would return from the dead. Basically, the disciples didn't "get it" until after the fact. So lack of belief--not hysteria fantasizing--emerges as thier state of mind before the resurrection.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say the disciples hallucinated. To refute this claim, their critics would only have to go to the tomb and show everyone the body. The tomb, however, was empty. (Note: All of the world's religions have places of honor commemorating their dead founders. Only Christianity has an empty tomb.) Given the uncontested fact of a bodiless grave, another explanation surfaced.
2) Jesus' resurrection was an elaborate hoax. While the gaurds slept, the disciples came and stole the body, then told everyone that their leader was alive. (Matthew 28:11-15.)
Many problems arise with this theory. For starters, the Jewish leaders of the day had taken great pains to ensure that the tomb could not be robbed (Matthew 27:62-66). Pilate himself placed these guards on special duty. And even if they had dozed off, how could the guards have known who robbed the tomb? They were supposedly sleeping!
This argument ignores the disciples' fear of being caught and prosecuted by the Jewish leaders of the day. Verse 19 shows them all locked in a room together, hidden away in fear. These men weren't about to leave the building, let alone go up against armed guards to steal a body.
And what else but Jesus' resurrection could have transformed these disciples from timid cowards to bold advocates, preaching that Jesus was alive in the very city in which his murderers still had power? (Acts 2:22-47.) Eventually, almost all of these men died martyrs' deaths. If this had been a hoax, they would have admitted to that fact when faced with the prospect of dying for it.
Some skeptical people may not fully appreciate the importance of trusting scripture. Some may "pick and choose" only appealing parts of the Bible-or, worse, not truly accept the claims of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Jesus gives us a vivid warning against rejecting the words of Moses and the prophets when He indicates that people not listening to them would not be convinced of the horror of hell even if someone "rises from the dead" (Luke 16:27-31).
Jesus also emphasized the accuracy of scripture down to the smallest detail (Matthew 5:18).
A Dead Sea scroll released in 1991 spoke of a Messiah who "suffered crucifixion for the sins of men." Also included were referrences to Isaiah 53, (written 740-680 B.C.) tying this Messiah to the suffering servant Isaiah foretold centuries before. Ironically, some Jewish sects have actually removed Isaiah 53 from scripture-its reference is "too" descriptive of Jesus. This find, however, indicates the people of Jesus' day were well aware of, and accepted, the parallel.
"Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:1-12 NIV)
There are over 100 prophecies in the Bible regarding the coming Messiah; their are seven times more prophecies concerning His second coming!
The resurrection described in the Bible came with a large earthquake..LARGE! Why isn't this mentioned by anyone? Graves opened up. I'm sure it would of made the news. Of course Jesus as a man probably existed but was twisted by the authorities. Christians followed the teachings of Christos. Simple. Nothing said that was supernatural though.
For crying out loud, assuming that you are right--no one mentioning a large earthquake--then how have you come to the conclusion that such an event did occur in the first place, if no one mentioned it?! And further more, what does an earthquake have to do with belief in the risen Jesus?
As for the Gospel accounts being manipulated by church authorities, their is literally no evidence to support such claims. All we have are early Christian creeds being circulated while "eyewitnesses" were still alive, and people dying in belief of the risen Jesus. It's that simple, debbiejo! Read Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Absolutely nothing has changed. What in the world are you talking about?! If what you say is true, what did the "original" Gospels state?! Incredible.
You have been a member of this forum for years; we have had disagreements in the past, but at this point, I can't even begin you take your seriously anymore. You either lack knowledge, have extreme bias views, or both. debbiejo, you are better than this... c'mon.
I have just moved. If my reference books weren't in boxes still, I could give more of an interesting answer regarding the votes on Jesus's divinity. It was quite divided, and if I recall right there were even some mysterious deaths would lead some to believe that it was cohurst correct voting.
The first Council of Nicaea was held 300+ years after the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ--the birth of Christianity. As to events that unfolded during the Council vote are irrelevant, having absolutely nothing to do with early Christian beliefs, namely that Jesus was divine (vindicated by the resurrection).
The earliest Christian creed can be found in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8, which was written and circulated while eyewitnesses were still alive and available for testimony.
It reads: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me."
This is fantastic, not to mention unique!
For instance, unlike early Muslims who believed Muhammad was addressed by angelic beings to "recite," early Christians had eyewitness testimony, including themselves! Early Muslims had no eyewitnesses; what Muhammad experience was "personal." He was alone in a cave. No eyewitnesses.
The early Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead, to include hundreds of others. That is what established Jesus' divinity, not the Council of Nicaea.
You may share the beliefs of some that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but you must concur--you must concur!--at minimum, something major occurred to birth the Christian church! All were willing to die over a belief--so absurd--as to a man rising from the dead.
"...and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all." (1 Corinthians 15: 17,19 NAB)
Last edited by ushomefree on Jul 18th, 2007 at 01:28 PM