The Extra Biblical Evidence for the existence of Jesus

a reply to: windword

Why do they need to prove him? I thought they had faith.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Maybe you should look up what Faith means in the Bible.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The James Ossuary is pretty good evidence from archaeology. Not to mention we have numerous archaeological find showing the New Testament writers are discussing real places like The Pool of Siloam. We have the Ossuary of the High Priest that crucified Jesus. We have the Pilate stone. All the evidence tells us the man at the very least existed.

No it's not. There's so many problems with that ossuary, like the owner claims to have purchased it from a dealer in 1976, but the "pit" wasn't excavated until 1980. There's no proof, without sampling 200-400 neighboring caves, that the box even came from the same excavation site!

Besides, it's not like Joe, Jim and Josh weren't common names, even in the 1st century.

The Pilate stone proves nothing. According to Josephus and Livy, Pilate was recalled to Rome for his harsh treatment of rebel Samaritans, who rioted when Pilot tried to crucify several of their religious leaders, succeeding killing their main leader, "The Good Samaritan", before chaos broke loose.

a reply to: windword

I am not going to just take your word for it like your cheerleaders do. Show me some issues with the science I have presented. I gave you an archaeometric analysis done on the Ossuary.

ccording to Josephus and Livy, Pilate was recalled to Rome for his harsh treatment of rebel Samaritans, who rioted when Pilot tried to crucify several of their religious leaders, succeeding killing their main leader, "The Good Samaritan", before chaos broke loose.

According to Josephus, Jesus was crucified and James the brother of Jesus was put to death as well.....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

According to Josephus, Jesus was crucified and James the brother of Jesus was put to death as well.....

I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, discounting everything Josephus wrote because of obvious pious forgeries.

Show me some issues with the science I have presented.

For one thing, Mr. Golan said in a telephone interview, he bought the ossuary in 1976 at the latest, whereas the Talpiot Tomb was excavated in 1980. (Had Mr. Golan purchased the ossuary after 1978, it could have been reclaimed by the state under Israel’s antiquities law.)

Even if the chemistry is correct, the James ossuary could have come from another tomb in East Talpiot, Mr. Golan posited, adding that such research required samples from a much broader test base.

“It is very interesting but not enough to determine anything conclusively,” Mr. Golan said of Dr. Shimron’s work. “You would need samples from at least 200 to 300 caves.”
www.nytimes.com...

Oops, I previously said 400 caves would need to be sampled.

Many scholars were horrified that the ossuary had apparently been looted from its burial site—not just because looting is illegal and immoral, but because an artifact’s being robbed of its context “compromises everything,” according to P. Kyle McCarter Jr., who chairs the Near Eastern studies department at Johns Hopkins University. McCarter added, “We don't know where [the box] came from, so there will always be nagging doubts. Extraordinary finds need extraordinary evidence to support them” (Van Biema 2002).

Not only the box’s provenance was lost but also, reportedly, its contents which might have helped establish its provenance. “Unfortunately,” stated André Lemaire (2002), “as is almost always the case with ossuaries that come from the antiquities market rather than from a legal excavation, it was emptied.” I lamented this reported state of affairs to a reporter (Ryan 2002), observing that the bones could have been examined by forensic anthropologists to potentially determine cause of death. James was reportedly thrown from the top of the Temple and stoned and beaten to death (Hurley 2002), so his skeletal remains might show evidence of such trauma.

As it turns out, Lemaire did not mention—perhaps he did not know—that Mr. Golan has a Tupperware container of bone fragments he says were in the ossuary when he acquired it. One piece is as large as one-half inch by three inches, and has raised questions about potential DNA evidence. Yet, according to Time magazine, Golan will not allow the fragments “to be displayed or analyzed” (Van Biema 2002).

Bone (Box) of Contention: The James Ossuary

a reply to: windword

I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, discounting everything Josephus wrote because of obvious pious forgeries.

The majority of scholars think Josephus actually mentioned Jesus and Pilate. You take the lesser majority view because it fits your bias. The idea that the Testimonium is completely interpolated is not a widely held view.



GIVE ME SCIENCE! I don't want people stating their opinions I want the reasons for their opinions . If I am not mistaken the analysis I posted is from 2006.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The majority of scholars think Josephus actually mentioned Jesus and Pilate. You take the lesser majority view because it fits your bias.

The major consensus among Christian scholars is that the text in question is too "insecure" to carry the weight of proof of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

GIVE ME SCIENCE! I don't want people stating their opinions I want the reasons for their opinions . If I am not mistaken the analysis I posted is from 2006.

There's plenty of science in the links that I provided. The fact that the chain of custody was compromised is enough to invalidate the owner's claims. The discrepancies in the dates of acquisition make it highly questionable that the box even came from the archaeological site under examination.

Bottom line the box fails to prove the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

a reply to: windword

This one will take awhile for a response. I've got to go meet some friends for lunch.

a reply to: windword

he major consensus among Christian scholars is that the text in question is too "insecure" to carry the weight of proof of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

So i visited your link and read it carefully. Lets look and see what it says. The conclusion you have posted seems to be a bit misleading in fact this whole site seems a bit misleading.


From your source for reasons its spurious :

"Earl Doherty argues: "In the section on Pilate in the earlier Jewish War, written in the 70s, Josephus outlines the same two incidents with which he began chapter 3 of Book 18 in the Antiquities of the Jews, incidents which caused tumult in Judea during the governorship of Pilate. In the Antiquities, these descriptions are immediately followed by the Testimonium about Jesus. In Jewish War (2.9/169-177) no mention of Jesus is included." (p. 222)"This is also suggestive but inconclusive. Robert Grant notes that "none of them [John the Baptist, James, or Jesus] is to be found in the parallel passages in his earlier War; presumably Christians had become more important in the interval." (p. 291)

Directly below this it tells us another scholar notes that none of the other Christians mentioned in antiquities. Not a very good reason but lets also go back to the top and see if what I said earlier would be considered false:

Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

Now my claim was that most scholars consider it partially authentic. 13 out of 52 considered it completely fake. That is 25%. This website quotes Feldman under arguments for this being spurious but Feldman, said that the authenticity "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars." (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91).

In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001).

Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000).

www.bede.org.uk...


It quotes Steve Mason for evidence of it being totally spurious as it being supurious but we can also find :

As he notes, "although some of the language in the testimonium is odd, we have no linguistic basis for dismissing the whole paragraph." (Mason, op. cit., page 170). Indeed, Mason favors the partial interpolation theory (Ibid., page 171).

Not to mention when you get into textual criticism there are textual variants which suggest an authentic core. Which is why many scholars believe it had a more negative or neutral tone before interpolation.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Now my claim was that most scholars consider it partially authentic. 13 out of 52 considered it completely fake. That is 25%. This website quotes Feldman under arguments for this being spurious but Feldman, said that the authenticity "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars." (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91).

And, only 4 found it entirely credible, and these were biased Christians.

I realize that the article that I linked, from the Early Christian Fathers website, which is a generous Christian website I linked for your benefit, that I cited for your consideration, because even after considering all the evidence, from both sides of the "Christian" aspect of the argument, the consensus still remains the same. The text cannot equivocally prove the historicity of one Jesus of Nazareth, even for believing Christian scholars.

Look at it this way, if the text DID prove the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, the Josephus texts in question can't be considered reliable. They're an insulting pious forgery to anyone familiar with Josephus' writings and with their intellectual fortitude in tact.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: chr0naut

Eleven of the 12 Disciples of Jesus were put to death at different times and locations becase they would not recant their faith. Seems a bit extreme to do for fan fiction.

You're using fan fiction to prove that fan fiction wasn't fan fiction. chr0, with all due respect, you don't know anything of the sort to be "true." It's what you have been told. It's what you read. Does not make it fact.

After Jesus return from Egypt as a child, there is no evidence that He travelled further than 124 miles from around Jerusalem.

Yes, there is evidence.

Kashmir.

The suggestion that He travelled more than 4,000 miles and that outside of the Roman Empire across lands held by hostile kingdoms, or by sea (there were only two trade routes in the first century) does not sound reasonable.

He knew the way. There were trade routes. It wasn't hard to travel from Palestine to India.

The Fifth Gospel: New Evidence from the Tibetan, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian and Urdu Sources About the Historical Life of Jesus Christ After the Crucifixion

The Lost Years of Jesus:
The Life of Saint Issa

The Best of the Sons of Men

Ancient scrolls reveal that Jesus spent seventeen years in India and Tibet
From age thirteen to age twenty-nine, he was both a student and teacher of Buddhist and Hindu holy men
The story of his journey from Jerusalem to Benares was recorded by Brahman historians
Today they still know him and love him as St. Issa. Their 'buddha'.

If there were such ancient texts, why did the chief Lama of the Himis monastery (the location where Notovitch claimed in his book "The Life of Sain Issa", to have seen the documents) say "I have never heard of [a manuscript] which mentions the name of Issa, and it is my firm and honest belief that none such exists. I have inquired of our principal Lamas in other monasteries of Tibet, and they are not acquainted with any books or manuscripts which mention the name of Issa." when questioned by J. Archibald Douglas, Professor at Government College in Agra, India (The interview was written down and witnessed by the lama, Douglas, and the interpreter, and on June 3, 1895, was stamped with the official seal of the lama).

Neither of the links you have provided are substantiated by actual ancient documents. The "Fifth Gospel" quotes extensively from "The Life of Saint Issa" despite the fact that it was revealed to be fraudulent. In the section titled "Bibliography" in "The Fifth Gospel" there is not one first century Indian text referenced. Indeed, the summation of the 'new' documentary evidence brought forward by "The Fifth Gospel" is "St. Issa", written in red pen, on pages 118 & 119 of a manuscript in the library of Rev S.S. Gergan of Kashmir.

a reply to: windword

And, only 4 found it entirely credible, and these were biased Christians.

Did you miss my quote where the guy read 13 books and the only three that rejected the Testimonium where mythicist? Everyone has a bias, we just have to try our best to be objective. This if from the work of Feldman who is a Jew. I have already said that the majority view in the scholarly world is partial authenticity. None of the partially authentic views remove the reference to the wise man Christians came from that was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The textual variants in the manuscript actually suggest he was the Christ used to be "he was believed to be the Christ".

I realize that the article that I linked, from the Early Christian Fathers website, which is a generous Christian website I linked for your benefit, that I cited for your consideration, because even after considering all the evidence, from both sides of the "Christian" aspect of the argument, the consensus still remains the same. The text cannot equivocally prove the historicity of one Jesus of Nazareth, even for believing Christian scholars.

It is history man. All we can say is what most probably happened. HIstory is not a hard science like physics or chemistry. This with 27 books of the NT are more than enough to deem his existence historical fact. If you think otherwise I'd say go talk to some new testament scholars and see if they think its a good hypothesis.

Look at it this way, if the text DID prove the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, the Josephus texts in question can't be considered reliable. They're an insulting pious forgery to anyone familiar with Josephus' writings and with their intellectual fortitude in tact.

Here you go again. Making huge generalizations that we both know are unfounded. The truth is to anyone who knows the Josephus text knows there has been Christian interpolation, but the vast majority do not think it totally spurious. No one said this text alone proves Jesus. It is simply more evidence to the already existing evidence from Paul and the Gospels.

Can you find another Grecko-Roman biography that doesn't consider what it is writing down true historical facts?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

None of the partially authentic views remove the reference to the wise man Christians came from that was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This part?

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

No. This entire passage has been rejected as Christian interpolation, forgery....spurious lies.

All we can say is what most probably happened.

No. It probably didn't happen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not hapless forgeries.

The truth is to anyone who knows the Josephus text knows there has been Christian interpolation, but the vast majority do not think it totally spurious.

You're just lying to yourself. Early Christians, probably Eusebius and his son Jerome, who admitted to tampered with scripture and ancient writings to fit their agenda, tampered with the Josephus texts to add their savior to historical documents where he didn't exist.

And here you are still trying to push it as evidence that your miraculous god/man really existed.

In fact, many people named Jesus existed during the 1st century era, some very powerful who left names for themselves. Josephus mentions 19 of them. But a man born of virgin, who walked on water, fed the masses from 2 loaves and 5 fish, turned water to wine, raised the dead, was crucified in some divine plan as a human blood sacrifice, to save mankind from an the angry wrath of god, died, took on all the sin that ever were and will be, and then rose from the dead, after a whole bunch of dead saints broke out of their tombs and wandered the city streets, and then he flew off via a cloud into the heavens, with a promise to return.....

This is a matter of faith, not fact. It was a matter of fact, why wouldn't your god have left a clearer mark for all of us to see and understand? Why is it your job to convince us something so unnatural is true?

a reply to: windword

No. This entire passage has been rejected as Christian interpolation, forgery....spurious lies.

...we both know this isn't the truth...

No. It probably didn't happen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not hapless forgeries.

How is Jesus was alive and was crucified under Pontius Pilate an extraordinary claim...look at how unwiling you are to even say the man existed...its kind of odd

You're just lying to yourself. Early Christians, probably Eusebius and his son Jerome, who admitted to tampered with scripture and ancient writings to fit their agenda, tampered with the Josephus texts to add their savior to historical documents where he didn't exist.

A common claim. There are no extant manuscripts before Eusebius so that claim has no basis but we do have other quotations and variants. They suggest that there where other manuscripts in circulation that said he was believed to be the Christ.

In fact, many people named Jesus existed during the 1st century era, some very powerful who left names for themselves. Josephus mentions 19 of them. But a man born of virgin, who walked on water, fed the masses from 2 loaves and 5 fish, turned water to wine, raised the dead, was crucified in some divine plan as a human blood sacrifice, to save mankind from an the angry wrath of god, died, took on all the sin that ever were and will be, and then rose from the dead, after a whole bunch of dead saints broke out of their tombs and wandered the city streets, and then he flew off via a cloud into the heavens, with a promise to return..... This is a matter of faith, not fact. It was a matter of fact, why wouldn't your god have left a clearer mark for all of us to see and understand? Why is it your job to convince us something so unnatural is true?

No one is trying to convince you of anything other than there was a man named Jesus who was crucified under pontius pilate. I have heard this claim before and even did a thread on it a few years ago. Any Jesus that has ever been mentioned to me didn't live during the time of Pontius Pilate so they don't even pass smallest bit of scrutiny.

You obviously have your mind made up. No amount of evidence is enough for you I get it.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

...we both know this isn't the truth...

No. Now you're just lying. That whole passage is BS forgery! I hate it when Christians lie trying to prove their faith! It undermines their whole religion and betrays how little they understand spirituality in general.

How is Jesus was alive and was crucified under Pontius Pilate an extraordinary claim...look at how unwiling you are to even say the man existed...its kind of odd

Jesus who? Lots of men named Jesus lived. Was a "Jesus" crucified according to the biblical story of Jesus of Nazareth, probably not. Were plenty of men named Jesus crucified under Pilate, probably.

Did the biblical "Jesus" exist? Definitely not!

a reply to: windword

I am definitely not lying all people have to do is re read our conversation and they will see you posted a source and quoted a portion of the entire document to make it appear as though the majority of Christian scholars think it is totally spurious. In that source we found the work of a Jewish man and other scholars you claimed was the work of "biased" Christians that shows 25% of the scholars out of 52 believed it to be totally spurious, and 75% believed it to be at least partially authentic. You take the lower majority view because it confirms your own bias and hardcore skepticism.

The same Jewish man who would love it if Jesus didn't exists said

Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91).

I am not the one being dishonest here.

Jesus who? Lots of men named Jesus lived. Was a "Jesus" crucified according to the biblical story of Jesus of Nazareth, probably not. Were plenty of men named Jesus crucified under Pilate, probably. Did the biblical "Jesus" exist? Definitely not!

How does your position explain the rise of Christanity. You think a bunch of Jews in first century Jerusalem were running around speaking about a man preforming miracles, claiming the man was with them, but I guess in your view he was invisible and no one could see him and Christanity just caught on. Your position lacks explanatory power when it comes to the origins of Christianity.

You don't have one piece of evidence that says the man Christianity rose around never existed.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Look, you're going to find plenty of people willing to believe lies. You're going to find plenty of people willing to promote lies. That doesn't make those lies true.

The consensus is that the texts of Josephus don't hold enough weight to prove the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that you're willing to promote this:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

...as truth, that Josephus really wrote this, and that this passage proves that Jesus "Christ" existed, tells me that nothing you say can ever be trusted.

You're promoting the worship of lies and liars.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

How does your position explain the rise of Christanity. You think a bunch of Jews in first century Jerusalem were running around speaking about a man preforming miracles, claiming the man was with them, but I guess in your view he was invisible and no one could see him and Christanity just caught on. Your position lacks explanatory power when it comes to the origins of Christianity. You don't have one piece of evidence that says the man Christianity rose around never existed.

Christianity isn't a new religion. Its a remake, a religious retooling of extant religions, that uses the truths of several themes, including the Egyptian Osiris/Isis/Horus mythology, the Eleusinian Mysteries, eastern and Zoroastrian knowledge and Judaism.

Christ is an allegorical metaphor for the human condition and the soul's journey through the physical realm. We are all spiritual beings, "Christs", who willingly left the "Father" side to experience the physical realm.

Jesus is an allegorical character, the Suffering Servant, who personifies all of our physical lives, our imminent deaths and spiritual resurrection, back to "the Father", Source.

a reply to: windword

Again with the misrepresentation of what I've said. Anyone can read our conversation. I have said numerous times to you that I think it is partially authentic along with the vast majority of scholars

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

...vast majority of scholars

No, not the vast majority of scholars. The vast majority of Christian scholars that are desperately biased, maybe.

That whole text stinks to high heaven! There's no redeeming clause within that whole pile of dog doo!