• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should we expect secular evidence of Jesus existence?

Y

Youtellme

Active Member
Many people say Jesus never existed because there is no evidence of his existence in archaeology or other sources. And so I was wondering, should we even expect to find such evidence?
After all, the Romans crucified a lot of people and a lot of people were put to death for blasphemy. So should we expect to find his name in some record perhaps?

Is it reasonable to find a mention of him on a stone tablet or perhaps something else? And even if such a thing was found would people believe he was after all? (That’s probably for another thread…)
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
That might be like asking if we should expect to find secular evidence for Harry Potter. I would ask why anyone would even think to look for evidence for a character in a story that is a theological construct. The story is about the Son of God, a redeemer of mankind that was sacrificed for our sins, a theological entity that doesn't exist in reality.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I don't think so. But there were almost no secular writers in ancient times. Everyone was writing from a particular religious point of view.

There is one fragment of Josephus that mentions Jesus, and then we have the whole heap of literature from early Christians - not just the Gospels but the so-called church fathers, many of whom converted from other religions to Christianity after receiving excellent educations at the great centers of learning during their time.

Jesus's historical significance came long after his death, when Christians became well known in Roman life. It is interesting that when the learned men attacked Christianity, they never once said that Jesus never existed.
 
Caladan

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
Youtellme said:
Many people say Jesus never existed because there is no evidence of his existence in archaeology or other sources. And so I was wondering, should we even expect to find such evidence?
After all, the Romans crucified a lot of people and a lot of people were put to death for blasphemy. So should we expect to find his name in some record perhaps?

Is it reasonable to find a mention of him on a stone tablet or perhaps something else? And even if such a thing was found would people believe he was after all? (That’s probably for another thread…)
Click to expand...
This is a very good thread!
The Roman records do not say much or even anything about the crucifixion of a man named Jesus.
For the most part it is chasing ghosts to try and find hard evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Youtellme said:
Many people say Jesus never existed because there is no evidence of his existence in archaeology or other sources. And so I was wondering, should we even expect to find such evidence?
After all, the Romans crucified a lot of people and a lot of people were put to death for blasphemy. So should we expect to find his name in some record perhaps?

Is it reasonable to find a mention of him on a stone tablet or perhaps something else? And even if such a thing was found would people believe he was after all? (That’s probably for another thread…)
Click to expand...
Of Jesus himself, it's probably reasonable not to expect evidence of him.

Of the Bible as a whole, I think it describes events that we should expect to be supported with external evidence. For instance (Matthew 27:51-53)...

51(BF)And behold, (BG)the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and (BH)the earth shook and the rocks were split.

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had (BI)fallen asleep were raised;

53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered (BJ)the holy city and appeared to many.
Click to expand...

I know that literacy wasn't that common in that era, but you'd think that if hordes of dead people were walking the streets of a large city in plain view of everyone, a few people would think to write something down about it.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
linwood said:
I thought there was a passage that mentioned James(Interpreted as the brother of Jesus)
It`s been awhile, I could be wrong.

Have you a reference?
Click to expand...
Not at hand, but that's the one I was thinking of.

Josephus makes the remark in an offhand way without much explanation, implying (IMO) that the Jesus he refers to would have been generally known to his intended readers.
 
Penumbra

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, it's not particularly reasonable to expect solid evidence of the existence of a person who preached mostly to illiterate people.

The way many Christians assert that only their religion is true, and their god expects people to believe it or suffer, however, I'd expect a better reason to believe them if they actually had a god on their side.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
linwood said:
Please don`t tell me you`re standing by the TF AE.
I expect so much more from you daddy.

Remember, I`m not one of them Christ mythers.
Click to expand...

There are two fragments - one is considered spurious [the TF], and the other is almost universally accepted as genuine [Jos. Ant. 20.9.1].

note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus - see the section "Reference to Jesus as the Brother of James"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
After thinking it over a bit, I think I should qualify my original response in the thread.

I think a fair bit of equivocation that goes on when it comes to this issue. Just to be clear:

- I don't think it's reasonable to expect to see direct evidence for the historic existence of a mortal itinerant preacher who was executed by the authorities, even if he has tales of miracles accreted onto his life story later and is "divinized" by his followers after his death.

- I do think it's reasonable to expect to see direct evidence for the historic existence of God descending to Earth in human form for the express purpose of sharing a message with all of humanity.

I don't think the lack of evidence speaks against the existence of Jesus-the-man at all, but I do think it speaks against the existence of Jesus-the-God... and in the process, speaks against most forms of Christianity.
 
B

BLACK ADDER

New Member
What is acceptable to you as proof?
Is early second century history and belief? Remember, all but one of Christ's disciples were executed for their belief.The next generation, the same thing.
I HOPE I could endure a horrible,burning death at the stake (ala Tyndale,Cranmer,Latimer et al) but you never know until the actual time of martyrdom occurs. But THEY certainly believed.
How about the Church Fathers during late antiquity and the early dark ages? Augustine of Hippo, Origen,Jerome, Antipas,and others were totally dedicated to Christ and His Church (even though the church known as the Catholic church quite early departed from the Bible,by venerating relics,saints, sacraments,etc) Still,the leaders of Christendom believed.
How about Jewish sources? I mean, it may be negative evidence in the Jewish reaction to Christianity, but it seems THEY were convinced of the reality that SOMEONE had lived and died and stirred up a lot of trouble.
And the Bible,of course,speaks for itself.
Anyway,as Martin Luther learned in 1517 ,the Bible says "The just shall live by faith..." And if you have faith, "For he that cometh to God,must believe that He is,and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him".
it's about faith.

Cordially
Edmond BlackAdder
Isaiah 32:17
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Apologists only accept the biased opinions of biblical scholars, and it is biblical scholars that universally accept the Josephus reference to Jesus as brother of James. Any one other than a biblical scholar scrutinizing even the historical record is considered unqualified by the apologist.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
BLACK ADDER said:
What is acceptable to you as proof?
Is early second century history and belief? Remember, all but one of Christ's disciples were executed for their belief.The next generation, the same thing.
I HOPE I could endure a horrible,burning death at the stake (ala Tyndale,Cranmer,Latimer et al) but you never know until the actual time of martyrdom occurs. But THEY certainly believed.
How about the Church Fathers during late antiquity and the early dark ages? Augustine of Hippo, Origen,Jerome, Antipas,and others were totally dedicated to Christ and His Church (even though the church known as the Catholic church quite early departed from the Bible,by venerating relics,saints, sacraments,etc) Still,the leaders of Christendom believed.
Click to expand...
Is the sincerity of believers evidence of the truth of a religion? If so, then I think we'd be forced to conclude that every single religion that's ever existed is true.
 
Y

Youtellme

Active Member
dogsgod said:
Apologists only accept the biased opinions of biblical scholars, and it is biblical scholars that universally accept the Josephus reference to Jesus as brother of James. Any one other than a biblical scholar scrutinizing even the historical record is considered unqualified by the apologist.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the time that people used to say, hey there is no evidence that Pilot and then a stone was found in some sort of arena and with his name on it and hey presto, he was real! Could the same thing not happen in future with Jesus.
 
Penumbra

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
BLACK ADDER said:
What is acceptable to you as proof?
Is early second century history and belief? Remember, all but one of Christ's disciples were executed for their belief.The next generation, the same thing.
I HOPE I could endure a horrible,burning death at the stake (ala Tyndale,Cranmer,Latimer et al) but you never know until the actual time of martyrdom occurs. But THEY certainly believed.
How about the Church Fathers during late antiquity and the early dark ages? Augustine of Hippo, Origen,Jerome, Antipas,and others were totally dedicated to Christ and His Church (even though the church known as the Catholic church quite early departed from the Bible,by venerating relics,saints, sacraments,etc) Still,the leaders of Christendom believed.
How about Jewish sources? I mean, it may be negative evidence in the Jewish reaction to Christianity, but it seems THEY were convinced of the reality that SOMEONE had lived and died and stirred up a lot of trouble.
And the Bible,of course,speaks for itself.
Anyway,as Martin Luther learned in 1517 ,the Bible says "The just shall live by faith..." And if you have faith, "For he that cometh to God,must believe that He is,and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him".
it's about faith.

Cordially
Edmond BlackAdder
Isaiah 32:17
Click to expand...
People have died for virtually every religion.

Faith in this context doesn't make sense because there exists more than one religious claim to put faith in, and therefore a procedure for identifying the correct one, if any exists, is necessary. (And therefore faith wouldn't factor in.)
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Youtellme said:
I was thinking about the time that people used to say, hey there is no evidence that Pilot and then a stone was found in some sort of arena and with his name on it and hey presto, he was real! Could the same thing not happen in future with Jesus.
Click to expand...

I believe that there is evidence that Pilot existed. His historicity was questioned until an inscription was found in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top