Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Niatero]

i would argue that in fact most historians have no problem with the historicity of Christ. I think that we are more than adequately able to attest to the fact that Christ 100% really existed at exactly the time the bible says He did and that he was crucified on the cross.

The point of contention centers around the resurrection and ascension. We cannot prove with the same level of certainty that Christ raised from the dead and then ascended into heaven 6 weeks later. That i think is where the distinction between Bart Erhman and Christian scholars becomes apparent. Having said that, there is one significant part of the biblical narrative on the death and ressurection of Christ that one day might well be proven...the raising of other dead people at that time who then wandered back into the city and lived among the population for the remainder of their lives

Matthew 27:52​

The original Koine Greek, according to Westcott and Hort, reads:[1]​

​

καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν,​

In the King James Version of the Bible, it is translated as:​

​

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,​

The modern World English Bible translates the passage as:​

​

The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.​

​

If any eyewitness writings outside of the bible are ever found that describe the raising of dead people who then wander back into the city and live among the people at the time of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, then this would be almost irrefutable evidence that Christ was indeed raised from the dead as well! We have writings outside of the bible that are close to being eyewitness, but not directly...they recite claims by others who were eyewitness.

It might be helpful for me to explain my own reasons for thinking that the gospels mostly contain lessons that were taught by a real person who taught in and between Galilee and Judea near the end of the Second Temple period. It's partly from many years of study and practice trying to learn to live the way He says to live, and partly continually seeing more and more allusions to passages in the Old Testament, often without ever having seen them pointed out by others. Of course it's possible that such a person could have been invented, but that doesn't seem plausible to me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Okay, I see. Your definition of "Biblical scholar" excludes anyone who disagrees with that, regardless of their training, experience, honesty and integrity.

Nope. I'm not giving a definition, but making an assertion. My definition of "Biblical scholar" involves everyone qualified to professionally study (and publish on) The Bible. It is simply a fact (so far as I know) that all Biblical scholars would agree that the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels is evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Now, do you have any counter-examples... or no? And please, spare me, don't invoke mythicists with backgrounds in other fields like Carrier or Price. My definition of "Biblical scholar" does exclude people who are, you know, not actually scholars of (relevant parts of) the Bible.

 

[Niatero]

It is simply a fact (so far as I know) that all Biblical scholars would agree that the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels is evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Maybe so, but I don't see how that's a reason for saying that the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

It might be helpful for me to explain my own reasons for thinking that the gospels mostly contain lessons that were taught by a real person who taught in and between Galilee and Judea near the end of the Second Temple period. It's partly from many years of study and practice trying to learn to live the way He says to live, and partly continually seeing more and more of the allusions to passages in the Old Testament, often without ever having seen them pointed out by others. Of course it's possible that such a person could have been invented, but that doesn't seem plausible to me.

very good point Niatero.

You know, something i really find interesting in the debate between religion and atheism (if i could use that to describe two opposites here), both sides are fearful the other will corrupt and therefore must be "shot to pieces" at all costs.

If only we could simply insert all sides into the curriculum and then allow the weight of evidence determine the students belief. It seems to me that as one who was originally raised to the age of 10 or 11 as a non Christian and then as a Christian from that point forwards, atheism is far more worried about indoctrination than Christianity is so perhaps atheism knows it is at a disadvantage?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Maybe so, but I don't see how that's a reason for saying that the evidence is overwhelming.

I never said this was my reason for saying the evidence was overwhelming... This is a really bizarre interpretation of what I said. A body of evidence doesn't become overwhelming if and when there's a single piece that everyone agrees on. It becomes overwhelming when it reaches a critical mass in terms of quantity and quality.

 

[Heyo]

I cant get this to quote your entire post...I've had to post a screen shot instead (sorry about that)

View attachment 90284

​

Internal Eyewitness​

​

Obviously, the internal evidences are found in the books of the New Testament. With the obvious exception of the apostle Paul, who's revelation came from his experience on the road to Damascus (either vision or angelic visit), the rest of the New Testament is written by eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry.​

​

External Eyewitnesses and evidences of Christ

**these external evidences are published writings of significant figures in history and far greater weight of evidence than evolutionary theory is where there are no human witnesses at all to any of Darwins theory

​

Letter of Quadratus (possibly the first Christian apologist) to emperor Hadrian (who reigned 117 – 138) is likely to have an early date and is reported by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 4.3.2 to have stated:[196]​

"The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times."[197]​

By "our Savior" Quadratus means Jesus and the letter is most likely written before 124 CE.[193] Bauckham states that by "our times" he may refer to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117–124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.[198] Bauckham states that the importance of the statement attributed to Quadratus is that he emphasizes the "eye witness" nature of the testimonies to interaction with Jesus.[197] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus​

​

​

Phlegon AD 140​

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events…but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.”11​

​

“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, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles”12​

​

“We have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.”13​

​

Thallus AD 55​

Thallus was perhaps the earliest non-Christian writer to refer to Jesus. While Thallus’ work has been lost, a fragment was quoted by Julius Africanus around AD 220, which itself was quoted by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus in his Chronicle (ca. AD 800)​

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” ​

Mara Bar Serapion AD 73​

What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews by killing their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.​

Pliny the Younger AD 112​

Others, whose names were given me by an informer, first said that they were Christians and afterwards denied it, declaring that they had been but were so no longer, some of them having recanted many years before, and more than one so long as twenty years back. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the deities, and cursed the name of Christ. But they declared that the sum of their guilt or their error only amounted to this, that on a stated day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak and to recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god, and that so far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, their oath was to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, and from breach of faith, and not to deny trust money placed in their keeping when called upon to deliver it.​

Suetonius AD 120 (letter from Julius Caesar to the emperor Domitian)​

“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from Rome.”​

​

Josephus AD 93 (Testimonium Flavianum)​

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.​

Tacitus AD 116​

“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 Judæa, 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.​

Jesus was so well-known within a century that word of him likely reached no less than seven Roman emperors: Claudius, who evicted Christians from Rome, Nero, who persecuted Christians; Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, under whose patronage Josephus wrote; and Trajan, who replied to Pliny. Top Ten Historical References to Jesus Outside of the Bible​

​

You claimed there were extra-biblical eyewitness testimonies of Christ (Jesus). None of your examples meets that claim.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I never said this was my reason for saying the evidence was overwhelming... This is a really bizarre interpretation of what I said. A body of evidence doesn't become overwhelming if and when there's a single piece that everyone agrees on. It becomes overwhelming when it reaches a critical mass in terms of quantity and quality.

So based on that, is it your claim that the theory of Evolution is overwhelming given there is absolutely no eyewitness historical evidence of any kind that supports it? Not a single human has ever seen any evolutionary development of one species into a new one and we have no evidence today of any further evolutionary development of Humans into something more advanced...the historical evidence we have shows humanity is plateaued and we have nothing to prove anything any different in our written history.

Neanderthals and hominids are now shown to have co existed in history and are contemporaries with humans and likely even inbred...so that supporting evidence claim is "out the window "!

 

[Niatero]

A body of evidence doesn't become overwhelming if and when there's a single piece that everyone agrees on. It becomes overwhelming when it reaches a critical mass in terms of quantity and quality.

Exactly, and that's what I'm not seeing here in evidence for the existence of Jesus. I think that there might be some confusion between historians agreeing that something is true, and agreeing on the evidence for it. It looks to me like most historians who write about Jesus agree that he existed, but don't see any need to try to prove it. They use the Bible to write stories about his aims and purposes and what he said and did, as if they are talking about a real person. but there isn't anything that all of them accept as evidence for any of that. They all pick and choose what to believe and not to believe in the stories, and there are wide divergences between them in their selections. When they do try to prove that he was a real person, they don't use any arguments from the Bible. They only use a handful of mentions from outside of the writings of Christians, that could possibly have simply been reporting what Christians thought about it. That looks very underwhelming to me, as evidence for his existence.

(later) They all agree that some of what the gospels say about Jesus is not true, but what is not true is different for different ones. If historians can just pick and choose what to believe and not to believe in those stories, based on their own unqualified personal theories about human psychology and sociology and unexamined bandwagon opinions about what is possible and what isn't,, then how are those stories evidence that he really existed?

To put it another way, most Biblical historians don't consider something being said in the gospel stories as a reason at all for thinking that it's true. If they did, it wouldn't be so easy for them to use the lame excuses that they do for discounting anything that doesn't agree with the story they want to tell. So I don't think that the reason for most of them agreeing that he existed is because of overwhelming evidence in the Bible. If they do really believe that he existed, it might be for some of the same reasons as mine, even if they aren't aware of it.

 

[Niatero]

If only we could simply insert all sides into the curriculum and then allow the weight of evidence determine the students belief.

Yes. I like that. That's what I think of history in general, that we should look at all the stories to see what lessons we can learn from them. If there are lessons we can learn from what actually happened, we're more likely to learn them if we try to learn what we can from all the stories.

Another one of my reasons for thinking that the gospel stories are about a real person, is that it looks to me like Paul has heard about Him from people who knew Him as a real person.

(later) I’m wondering now what people think about that when they deny the existence of Jesus, if they aren’t denying that some of the letters of Paul were written by a real person. Do they think that he’s lying about knowing people who knew Jesus, or that they were lying to him? He didn’t really know anyone who claimed to have seen Jesus in person, or if he did, they were lying to him? Is that why denial of Paul’s existence is sometimes associated with denying the existence of Jesus? If so, how many people would have to be lying, for Paul not to exist?

 

[Niatero]

I’m thinking that historians, when they are being honest and responsible, don’t consider their stories as facts. They consider them as their best guess about what might have happened in the past that can explain how it happened that we have some of the artifacts, documents and stories that we have now. Calling them “facts” is contrary to what they themselves think about them and does them an injustice.

(later) I’m wondering now where people are getting that idea of calling the stories of historians “facts.” Are there any historians who call their stories “facts”?

 

[joelr]

Interesting spin on pre-existence (reincarnated celestial being) and almost certainly a position held by gnostic Christians -- a pre-existence position very different than the one proposed in John 1 - and more like the Buddhist tradition .. which some have suggested of Jesus. Somewhat interesting that Paul had such idea but I put Paul at the very low end of the totem pole in terms of evidence of Jesus .. we would expect someone who has had vision as Paul is suggested to have had to believe in pre-existence in some form .. whether or not this was teaching of Jesus is a completely different question.

Strange you say no evidence Jesus was a man .. coming from one well read .. wondering if I am misinterpreting something .. as on of the great debates in the early Church was the nature of Christs divinity and humanity .. and the whole spectrum in between - talking about what the people at that time believed about Jesus.

Well I mean no great evidence. Could be a Euhemerization. Dr Carrier and Dr Lataster give it 3 to 1 odds favoring myth but that's still 33% possibility.
If you go through Mark and take account all of the rewrites - Paul, OT, Romulus, Homer, and so on, and then the fact that this was a Jewish version of Persian and Hellenistic theology, which needs a messiah and a savior son/daughter of God, it could be that they were using this arc angel Philo spoke of. Firstborn son, favorite son, star of the East and so on.

As Carrier says:

"The only plausible reason for why some Jews ever came up with a Jewish dying-and-rising savior god in precisely that region and era, is that everyone else had; it was so popular and influential, so fashionable and effective, it was inevitable the idea would seep into some Jewish consciousness, and erupt onto the scene of “inspired” revolutionizing of a perceived-to-be-corrupted faith. They Judaized it, of course. Jesus is as different from Osiris as Osiris is from Dionysus or Inanna or Romulus or Zalmoxis. The differences are the Jewish tweaks. Just as the Persian Zoroastrian system of messianism, apocalypticism, worldwide resurrection, an evil Satan at war with God, and a future heaven and hell effecting justice as eternal fates for all, was Judaized when they were imported into Judaism. None of those ideas existed in Judaism before that (and you won’t find them in any part of the Old Testament written before the Persian conquest). No one claimed they were “corrupting” Judaism with those pagan ideas (even though in fact they were). They simply claimed these new ideas were all Jewish. Ordained and communicated by God, through inspired scripture and revelation. The Christians, did exactly the same thing.


It’s time to face this fact. And stop denying it. It’s time to get over it already. Resurrected savior gods were a pagan idea. All Christianity did, was invent a Jewish one."

Let us dispense with the furthest away from the source and look at the original story .. as opposed to the numerous edited and revised versions .. and Pauline scripture having nothing to add .. the text not knowing anything about Jesus directly .. such as is proposed by the Sermon on the Mount in Matt for example. These give as the throughts of Jesus .. Jesus is the speaking voice .. not the througts of Paul.

Carrier has an article pulling from 11 papers about what Mark took from Paul to create earthly events for Marks story. It's very convincing.

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

In one example he points out Jesus told Paul to tell future Christians that he was the body and blood......
In Mark, it becomes Jesus telling people the information at an actual supper.


"Mark composed his mythical tale of Jesus using many different sources: most definitely the Septuagint, probably Homer, and, here we can see, probably also Paul’s Epistles. From these, and his own creative impulses, he weaved together a coherent string of implausible tales in which neither people nor nature behave the way they would in reality, each and every one with allegorical meaning or missionary purpose. Once we account for all this material, there is very little left. In fact, really, nothing left.

We have very good evidence for all these sources. For example, that Mark emulates stories and lifts ideas from the Psalms, Deuteronomy, the Kings literature, and so on, is well established and not rationally deniable. That he likewise lifts from and riffs on Paul’s Epistles is, as you can now see, fairly hard to deny. By contrast, we have exactly no evidence whatever that anything in Mark came to him by oral tradition. It is thus curious that anyone still assumes some of it did. That Mark’s sources and methods were literary is well proved. That any of his sources or methods were oral in character is, by contrast, a baseless presumption. Objective, honest scholarship will have to acknowledge this someday.

This wipes out everything but Mark and Matt --- Matt using everything in mark sans a few passages derogatory to Jesus and/or disciples -- and he adds a few things .. likely from another source Q .. but for now let us stick with Mark --- the first written story of Jesus that we know of .. what did someone in 65 AD think Jesus is .. Man - Human - half and half - divine spark .. Angel ... YES these are things that later christians believed .. but what does the fellow in 65 AD think .. a Jew having heard of Jesus --- or Roman -- reading the original story ?

I think the Sermon is believed to be taken from The Septuagint.

We have other adoption stories in the bible ... Abraham for example .. this however does not come with a prophetic abillity .. like the prophets who we could also say were adopted .. none having as cool a ritual as Jesus "that we know of" .. .. and this doesn't include all the adoption stories from a gazillion other myths that the reader is going to be aware.

The reader believes Jesus is a man - age 30 - who comes from humble beginning (remember there is no virgin birth in mark) - and this Man is adopted-chosen by God .. the text uses the term annointed one of God - Messiah.. This is a man being depicted .. who is annointed by God .. receives some kind of divine spark (a sliver of the all-spark is as best I can put it) is able to speak God's word through "The Spirit of the Lord" .. I use this phrase because this dude was around in the OT ... and this spirit is invoked .. present at the baptism. Every Jew is going to be familiar with this spirit .. the Roman .. some other divine spirit .

So in Hellenism, which the NT is a Hellenistic document, there are sons/daughters of a supreme God.

I don't know if this is an adoption or what exactly it means? Klauck touches on it in several places but Im not sure?


The Religious Context of Early Christianity


A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions

HANS-JOSEF KLAUCK


Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Munich, Germany


The cult of heroes


In yet another way, the boundaries between gods and human beings were somewhat porous: after their death, human beings could be declared 'heroes', i.e. they could ascend to become a kind of demigod (in individual cases, this path leads even further, to the status of a daimon and ultimately of a god). What is a hero? Putting it in simple terms, and prescinding from In yet another way, the boundaries between gods and human beings were somewhat porous: after their death, human beings could be declared 'heroes', i.e. they could ascend to become a kind of demigod (in individual cases, this path leads even ftirther, to the status of a daimon and ultimately of a god). What is a hero? Putting it in simple terms, and prescinding from

When Luke has Jesus say 'The kings of the Gentiles rule over them, and those who have power over them are called benefactors (euepyeTai)' (Lk 22:25), he reveals that he is very well acquainted with the basic structure of the Hellenistic cult of benefactors. He reserves for God (1:47) and for Jesus Christ (2:11) the title soter, which was linked to this cult. In our review of the cult of rulers and emperors, we have encountered other christological tides of honour, viz. the sobriquet 'son of (a) god' and the tide kyrios (one need only compare such phrases as: 'Nero, lord of all the world'*' or 'Caesar, lord of all'),** to say nothing of the direct address with the title 6e6s, 'God', which the New Testament applies to Jesus only in borderline cases, if at all. We have also noted the concept of euangelion, which takes on a rudimentary narrative dimension through its use in the plural to designate striking events in the biography of an emperor. The fact that Jewish authors such as Philo and Josephus likewise use related terms in this sense shows how closely they were linked to the imperial cult. Philo uses the verb for the joyful news of Caligula's ascent to the throne and of his

recovery from a serious illness (Leg. Gai. 18 and 231), Josephus employs the noun for the news that Vespasian has seized power (Bell. 4.618: 'Swifter than the flight of thought, rumour proclaimed the news of the new ruler over the East, and every city celebrated the good tidings [euayyeXia] and offered sacrifices for him'). The linguistic style used to speak of the parousia of the Kyrios in the New Testament traditions recalls the arrival of the ruler in his city. Even more fundamentally, one may ask whether the incarnation of the Son of God and his role as mediator have any connection with the proven fact of the attribution of divine status to human beings in the non-Jewish classical world. Adolf Deissmann's study of the cult of Christ and that of Caesar (in Light from the Ancient East) is a pioneering work of great value. Here he has shown us a viable path for scholarly assessment of these phenomena, when he writes: 'Thus there arises a polemical parallelism between the cult of the emperor and the cult of Christ, which makes itself felt where ancient words derived by Christianity from the treasury of the Septuagint and the Gospels happen to coincide with solemn concepts of the imperial cult which sounded the same or similar' (342). No scholar would wish to postulate simple adoptions and derivations from one cult to the other. Rather, one must tackle the question in terms of the history of the reception of these terms. How are specific concepts understood in a new context? What contribution did this intellectual horizon make to the evaluation, accentuation, and elaboration of these concepts? Where must antagonisms necessarily be generated? On the basic level, we have the indispensable task of determining critically the relationship between the Christological models supplied by the New Testament and two concepts: the idea of the epiphany of heavenly powers in human form, and the apotheosis of earthly human beings either during their lifetime or after their death. Here, of course, the imperial cult is only one partial aspect of a much larger complex of ideas.

 

[joelr]

Maybe I need to ask only one question at a time, and make them more precise. Has anyone here ever critically examined the guidelines that historians allegedly use to decide what documents to use and how, to write their stories?

(later) Again, that question was not rhetorical. I really would like to know if anyone here has ever critically examined any of the guidelines that historians allegedly use to decide what documents to use and how, to write their stories.

Carrier teaches a course on it and has a youtube lecture -

Miracles and Historical Method - Richard Carrier - Skepticon 5​

Dr Carrier mentions in an interview that the majority of his studies from MA to PhD in history was learning how to use sources and verifying documents and so on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As Carrier says:

(I don't know what I find more irritating, Carrieritis or reliance on quotes from Revelations.)

 

[Niatero]

Hmmm, nothing there is particularly unique. They are just generic techniques applied to a specific question.

Which do you think are special rules applied to Jesus only?

I was imagining that there were some guidelines widely used by historians called "the historical method" including guidelines for deciding what to believe and what not to believe in ancient documents; and that there was an agreement among Biblical scholars to add some guidelines to that for writing stories about Jesus. After you asked me that question, I looked again, and found out that it was all in my imagination.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Internal EyewitnessObviously, the internal evidences are found in the books of the New Testament. With the obvious exception of the apostle Paul, who's revelation came from his experience on the road to Damascus (either vision or angelic visit), the rest of the New Testament is written by eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry.External Eyewitnesses and evidences of Christ

**these external evidences are published writings of significant figures in history and far greater weight of evidence than evolutionary theory is where there are no human witnesses at all to any of Darwins theory
Letter of Quadratus (possibly the first Christian apologist) to emperor Hadrian (who reigned 117 – 138) is likely to have an early date and is reported by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 4.3.2 to have stated:[196]"The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times."[197]By "our Savior" Quadratus means Jesus and the letter is most likely written before 124 CE.[193] Bauckham states that by "our times" he may refer to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117–124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.[198] Bauckham states that the importance of the statement attributed to Quadratus is that he emphasizes the "eye witness" nature of the testimonies to interaction with Jesus.[197] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_JesusPhlegon AD 140“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events…but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.”11“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, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles”12“We have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.”13Thallus AD 55Thallus was perhaps the earliest non-Christian writer to refer to Jesus. While Thallus’ work has been lost, a fragment was quoted by Julius Africanus around AD 220, which itself was quoted by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus in his Chronicle (ca. AD 800)“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Mara Bar Serapion AD 73What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews by killing their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.
Pliny the Younger AD 112Others, whose names were given me by an informer, first said that they were Christians and afterwards denied it, declaring that they had been but were so no longer, some of them having recanted many years before, and more than one so long as twenty years back. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the deities, and cursed the name of Christ. But they declared that the sum of their guilt or their error only amounted to this, that on a stated day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak and to recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god, and that so far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, their oath was to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, and from breach of faith, and not to deny trust money placed in their keeping when called upon to deliver it.
Suetonius AD 120 (letter from Julius Caesar to the emperor Domitian)“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from Rome.”Josephus AD 93 (Testimonium Flavianum)“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
Tacitus AD 116“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 Judæa, 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.


Jesus was so well-known within a century that word of him likely reached no less than seven Roman emperors: Claudius, who evicted Christians from Rome, Nero, who persecuted Christians; Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, under whose patronage Josephus wrote; and Trajan, who replied to Pliny. Top Ten Historical References to Jesus Outside of the Bible

Even NT was not written by any eyewitness.

 

[Truthseeker]

Of course, but those are the things you find in the history books.

To elaborate, the reason to be interested in historical research is not what is recorded there has on later history, but as part of an investigation of what to believe about the teachings and life of Jesus, period. Not everybody finds that of interest. It has limited utility for me, as I am a Baha'i who does believe as part of my religion the divine character of the mission of Jesus. However, there are some issues within that that I find of interest, perhaps mostly because I am an "egghead" that is interested in the history of religion for its own sake. It has little practical value. Whatever I believe comes from the Baha'i Writings that I see as much more reliable historically. So knowing the truths of what Jesus taught exactly and what the events of His life were doesn't teach me much. Pointing Christians to historical research is usually fruitless. So I know the controversies pretty well but it hasn't had hardly any practical utility.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To elaborate, the reason to be interested in historical research is not what is recorded there has on later history, but as part of an investigation of what to believe about the teachings and life of Jesus, period.

That is not why I'm interested in history.

 

[Truthseeker]

That is not why I'm interested in history.

I noticed a reference in you signature to a Vivian Silver, for which you gave a death date of October 7th. I couldn't avoid the implications of that and found that she was a peace activist that had been found to have been killed by Hamas on October 7th in their attack. That's the worst possible loss for the Jewish community, in my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I noticed a reference in you signature to a Vivian Silver, for which you gave a death date of October 7th. I couldn't avoid the implications of that and found that she was a peace activist that had been found to have been killed by Hamas on October 7th in their attack. That's the worst possible loss for the Jewish community, in my opinion.

Yes. I appreciate your post.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So based on that, is it your claim that the theory of Evolution is overwhelming given there is absolutely no eyewitness historical evidence of any kind that supports it? Not a single human has ever seen any evolutionary development of one species into a new one and we have no evidence today of any further evolutionary development of Humans into something more advanced...the historical evidence we have shows humanity is plateaued and we have nothing to prove anything any different in our written history.

Neanderthals and hominids are now shown to have co existed in history and are contemporaries with humans and likely even inbred...so that supporting evidence claim is "out the window "!

I never said anything about evolutionary biology. Different topic, different domain, different methodologies. If you want to debate evolution/creationism, aren't there dedicated subs or threads for that?