If there is no reliable evidence of Jesus outside the bible isn't faith a gamble?

Question

Claims are that outside of the bible there are a number of documents that demonstrate Jesus's existence. The problem is that when this is looked into critically none of it turns out to be reliable historical evidence. The truth is if evidence like the evidence for Jesus was used to try and demonstrate anything else it would be the laughing stock of the scholarly and scientific community, as well as the public at large. This fact alone should call to question the very foundation of Christianity. Many people though have explained this fact away as blasphemy, or unorthodoxy and just plain shut out. They either ignore the arguments of people who have said this, or pull as proof sources that are at best hearsay and claim this is proof that Jesus did indeed exist. If what you believe is truth it should stand to questioning.

If you care about the truth you must question what you believe. Examine it carefully and see if it is indeed true. Just going off of emotions, or feelings of divine presence. or inspiration isn't proof of anything. A good thing to remember is not everything in the spiritual world is good, according to Christianity, and almost every other faith. A deceptive spirit could easily give you these same feelings, and the popularity of a claim says nothing about its truth. What is likely to be most shocking to those of you who believe in Jesus, is the obvious yet ignored fact that no one, not a government official, not a scribe, not a historian, or philosopher, or any common man even writes about Jesus during the time he supposedly lived. It seems very strange and almost inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus who supposedly caused so much controversy no one bothered to write down anything about him at all. That is the truth though. Even the earliest Bible reference to Jesus dates to at least A.D. 64, and the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, dates to at least A.D. 70.



The most commonly cited non Christian source is Josephus when he says in

Antiquities of the Jews:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The problem with this is an early Christian writer Origen Says that "Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah", this contradicts what is said above.This means that this work could have been edited later by the church making it useless since no one can figure out for certain what was original in this passage, and if it even originally existed at all. Also This passage appears to be greatly praising Christianity. Think about It. it is hard if not nearly impossible to imagine Josephus who was a Jewish historian, and of priestly and royal ancestry praising him, when Jesus was supposedly executed for blasphemy. This passage is also highly controversial and not often accepted.

Here are some other things to think about when it comes to this passage. (taken from website above)

The overall passage is positive towards Jesus, even if the overtly Christian parts are removed
The passage interrupts the continuity of the writing
Jesus is not mentioned in the Table of Contents
There are stylistic variations from Josephus' style
The passage is not referenced by anyone prior to Eusebius in the 4th century
The section on Pilate is similar to another section on Pilate in Josephus' earlier writing The Jewish War, which does not contain the Jesus reference
Josephus never wrote anything else about Jesus
The reference is quite small considering the subject matter, and the fact that Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist and other "false prophets"
Full insertion of the paragraph is more likely than multiple different alteration
There is little doubt that this is fake and was likely inserted or altered later by the church. Doesn't it seem strange that for a figure that is claimed have caused such an uprising as Jesus there is nothing at all outside the bible that is reliable even mentioning him. Yet Historians have such detailed records of other events in his time.

Answer 1

Responsible historians disagree with your conclusions.





There is no evidence for almost all of the 240 million people alive in the year 33 CE but there is evidence of the historical person of Jesus Christ. http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/World%20Population%20Estimates%20Interpolated%20and%20Averaged.pdf



Call them short-sighted but historians write about history and not current events. Unless someone was royalty (and sometimes not even then) almost no one received "contemporary attestation." If this standard was used with Alexander the Great then it would be determined that he did not exist.



People accept what Greeks and pro-Greeks wrote about Greeks,

People accept what Romans and pro-Romans wrote about Romans,

But people refuse to accept what Christians and pro-Christians wrote about Christians?



Luckily there is an abundance of anti-Christians who wrote about Christ. For example:



The (Pagan) Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus Christ, His execution by Pontius Pilate and the persecution of early Christians in Rome in his 109 AD work, "The Annals,"



"Consequently, to get rid of the report (that Nero started the great fire of Rome), 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 Judaea, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."



Book 15, chapter 44 of "The Annals" by Tacitus, translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html



See also Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith (Why Believe in Jesus?) http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Is_There_Historical_Evidence_for_Jesus.3F



With love in Christ

Answer 2

Yes, Christian faith is certainly precariously founded but your suggestion that Jesus never existed is not taken seriously by qualified literary scholars and historians of the period.



You ask how it is that no contemporary person wrote about Jesus when he 'supposedly caused so much controversy' but, despite likely exaggerations about Jesus popularity in early Christian literature, the gospels themselves suggest that he spent nearly all of his time in the small villages around Galilee and only ever caused any sort of "controversy" in Jerusalem just before he was arrested and executed. Why would contemporary Roman historians devote any time to a small time Jewish preacher who led no 'uprising' and was ignominiously put to death when he came up against the local Roman administration?



On Josephus, my understanding is that the reference shows clear signs of tampering (Josephus would certainly not have accepted Jesus as the Messiah), but the general scholarly consensus is that the core is original. Supporting evidence would include the very refutations that Origen refers to:



Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James



Origen is referring here to the other reference to Jesus in Josephus that you completely ignore, where he describes the death of James 'the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ' (Antiquities 20, 9:1). If you'd researched the Origen reference properly you would have realised that two of your website points were false - that there is no reference to these passages before the 4th century (Origin writes in the early 3rd century quoting Josephus almost word for word) and that Josephus only mentions Jesus once. For a mature, accessible and well referenced discussion of the Josephus references that is completely at odds with your own perspective, see the Wikipedia link below.



You also seem to have a fairly superficial understanding of the dating and formation of the earliest Christian writings. First Thessalonians is usually dated to the early 50s, long before your estimate of 64 CE for the 'first reference to Jesus'. It is also commonly agreed that Mark (probably early 70s as you correctly suggest) uses written sources and that the earliest Christian writings were collections of the sayings of Jesus, such as we find in the gospel of Thomas, that originated long before the canonical gospels were composed. Other pre gospel documents are thought to include independent passion narratives and miracle collections.



Of course the gospel writings contain many stories that are historically unreliable. The conflicting birth stories in Matthew and Luke are prime examples, while a great deal of the passion and resurrection narratives may have been "coloured in" using unlikely prophetic "proof texts" from the Hebrew Bible. Minimalist scholars usually accept as historically reliable such elements as birth in Nazareth, baptism by John, a kernel of authentic sayings, the occurrence of some sort of disturbance in the Jerusalem temple, and crucifixion in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate. I suggest that you find more convincing ways to ridicule Christian belief than the rather poorly researched approach that you have taken here. After all, if what you believe is truth it should stand up to questioning.

Answer 3

I don't follow any particular religion. I pray sometimes but I don't identify with any religion. People believe what they want but aren't allowed to do whatever they want. People say what they want and they *generally* serve no obvious reprocussions for it. I have no reason to believe in anything. Knowing MYSELF is most important.... Another reason why I see it odd that people focus so much on the stuff they already have, and the beliefs they have.. are you really not able to see past your own reality? Or do you just accumulate a bunch of stuff and values that you feel like is helping you?



It's most important to Know and be aware of the little things going on in your life.

Answer 4

Just because 300 years later the early christian writings would be collected into "the Bible" does not invalid them as contemporary historical sources. The four gospels are real texts written by three people who knew Jesus personally and a historian who researched his life less the 20 years after his death. As such they are valid historical sources for studying his life.



We know the synoptic gospels date from less then 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus because they are quoted in other text by that time. Paul alone includes more than 20 short phrase and two longer quotes from the gospel of Luke in his first letter to the Corinthians. He could not have quoted that text if it did not exist yet. Luke quotes 89% of Mark. Matthew quotes 91% of Mark. And Luke quotes 5% of material from Matthew that is not in Mark. So we know that three gospels were all in exist before 55 AD. (Jesus having been crucified in 33 AD.)



So even without looking at any of the other sources (and there are many), there is solid evidence to saw that details of the life Jesus including his miracles, healings, and resurrection, were firmly established within 20 years of his life. Myths do not develop in the short of a length of time.



Plus there would still have been millions of people who knew Jesus (or that he did not exist) and would have come forward to dispute those accounts. Yet there is not a single document (or hint of one) that does that. Rather the opponents of Jesus also recorded that he was a healer, teacher, and miracle worker. Again, they were making these claims within one generation of his life. Not enough time for a myth to develop - or for his opponents to come to accept that myth.



Sorry, but there is historical proof of the life in Jesus outside of the canon of the NT. Including the writings of Josephus, and the Babylonian Talmud. Both writing by opponents of Jesus within a generation of his life, and both supporting the details of the NT.

Answer 5

"Yet Historians have such detailed records of other events in his time."

Siting support for this statement alone would be interesting, if possible.



You are utterly ignoring the writings of the generations just following the events. Never mind the accounts given as having been made during these events (copies of which you site at 70 AD), but look to the generation that were children as these events unfolded (Clement, Polycarp) who were also eyewitnesses of the events, and the succession of their witness as observed by the generations following them (Papias and Ireaneous and so on) still writing in Greek as the language of commerce of the day. Stilll not completely out of the first century. These things were not conjured then, but point back to (or were written by) the witnesses of the events.



There is no historic event in antiquity that was written of in such volume, so close in time to the events. You discount the entire body of it, simply because to write of it then, meant you saw it happen, or knew someone who said they did, and you could not then be a "secular" writer.



I wonder how many would be able to discount Buddah on the same basis.... hmmm.



Give your head a shake. Just because the witness writing was pro Christian, doesn't automatically discount the validity of what was written.



My source is a book of such writings and their origins and their history... I invite you to read it.

Answer 6

I'm not reading that wall of text (and I doubt anyone else will, either). I'd suggest keeping your questions simple, and straight to the point.



To answer your question, that's almost the definition of faith. Faith is basically the belief in something in the absence of evidence. Since there's no evidence, then that faith is a gamble.

Answer 7

"If" is a word often used in this Y!A, especially in R&S. This brings forward a hypothesis, usually one that the questioner accepts. But in this case others have proven it wrong.



Most encyclopedias and scholarly works state that historians generally agree that Jesus was historical. The question among them is if he is what he is quoted as saying that he is - that is, the Christ, and the only begotten Son of God who came down from heaven for our salvation. Those who disagree are usually atheists and agnostics, those who have already come to a conclusion without considering the evidence.



So is faith a gamble? I don;t think so, since I have faith in Jesus Christ, and in the Bible. Faith is NOT "believing in something for which there is no proof" - that is the atheist's definition. The definition of those who have faith in the Bible is:



Hebrews 11:1-3

11 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration* of realities that are not seen. 2 For by means of it, the men of ancient times* had witness borne to them.

3 By faith we perceive that the systems of things* were put in order by God’s word, so that what is seen has come into existence from things that are not visible.



The Greek words for "assured expectation" and "evident demonstration" are legal terms, used in official documents of that time. Just because a person cannot see something - such as gravity and wind - does not mean that it does not exist.



Men of ancient times have left their testimony of their experience with God. Current situations also corroborate the truth of that testimony. There is the fact that there is a nation of Israel who even now celebrates the Passover, one of the oldest continually observed ceremonies in the world, and it commemorates God's deliverance of Israel from Egyptian slavery. There is also the fact that our DNA as humans indicates that we all come from one couple, in agreement with the account of Adam and Eve.

And the Romans themselves corroborate their own persecution of the first century Christians, who did not take life, but were willing to sacrifice their own lives rather than deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because many of them were eye witnesses of his return from the grave.



The lack of the Bible's definition of faith on the part of others does not make it a gamble.

Answer 8

The Josephus entry on Christo/Jesus was a later entry, a forgery.



The Church ran a forgery mill for over a thousand years up to the time of the printing press.

Answer 9

No gamble involved when all they are doing is wasting the one life they have in the forlorn hope of getting another to waste!



The only way primitive religion exists today is through the child abuse of forcing it into very, very young children but thanks to better education and growing intellects so many teens are able to discover the truth, throw off the indoctrination and step into the real world!



Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.



The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!



There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!



There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!



He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?



Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!



Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!



At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!



Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?



Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!



Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD



Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.



Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!



Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

Answer 10

What?



The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).



Suetonius also wrote about the persecution of Christians during the reign of Nero. "The Christians were punished; a sort of men of a new and magical superstition." His criticism of the early Church affirms that this was a "new" religion that had recently appeared.



The historian Pliny, a close friend of Tacitus, was born near Milan, Italy in A.D. 62. He served as a consul during the reign of Emperor Trajan and was later appointed governor of the Roman provinces of Pontus and Bithynia [Turkey] in the period A.D. 101 to 110. He wrote to the emperor to request specific instructions about the interrogation of the Christians whom he was persecuting. In his Epistles X 96, he states that these Christian believers would not worship Emperor Trajan and would not curse their leader, Jesus Christ, even under extreme torture.



What do you do with all the Messianic Prophecies in the Jewish Bible (Also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (specifically the Isaiah scroll) found to be written even before Jesus time)? These prophecies told us (the Jewish people) what to look for in the coming Messiah which Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) fulfilled.



What about the Talmudic references to Him (albeit they are negative) written by those who opposed Him?



Also - Check a copy out of "Evidence that demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.



And- "The Case for a Creator" and "The Case for Christ" by former atheist Lee Strobel.



Excellent materials for the true seeker. (That is unless you are a juror with your mind already made up before the other lawyer ever gets up to speak).



The Biblical texts that were written hundreds of years before the Messiah (the Dead Sea Scrolls prove this) tell us about the Messiah....



The Bible tells us that the Messiah would be…



• Born in Bethlehem The Jewish prophet said so in Micah 5:2

• Born a descendant of David The Jewish prophet said so in Jeremiah 23:5

• Live a sinless life The Jewish prophet said so in Isaiah 53:9

• Do miracles like Moses The Jewish prophet said so in Deuteronomy 18:18

• Enter Jerusalem on a donkey The Jewish prophet said so in Zechariah 9:9

• A rejected man The Jewish prophet said so in Isaiah 53:3

• Die as a substitute for others The Jewish prophet said so in Isaiah 53:5

• Rise from the dead The Jewish prophet said so in Isaiah 53:10

• Come before 70 A.D. The Jewish prophet said so in Daniel 9:26

• Have an impact on all nations The Jewish prophet said so in Isaiah 49:6



And this is just the start!



Jesus did in fact exist.

Answer 11

This is known to be a forgery, probably produced by a monk in the middle ages. I suspect that he recognised the dearth of evidence of the existence of Christ so he decided to produce some of his own

Answer 12

There IS concrete evidence that Jesus Christ is real. In the millions of Christians living out His will. STILL. The only ones that choose to ignore that pertinent fact are those who don't dare admit He exists. Apparently its too scary for them to.

Answer 13

~Wrong!



Josephus Flavius "The Jewish Wars" is considered reliable

Tacitus "Histories" is considered reliable



You need to check your facts before making assumptions.



Read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel and you will see there is overwhelming evidence that would stand in a court of law.

Answer 14

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Answer 15

You do know that josephus' passages about jesus were forged...

Answer 16

Faith is not a gamble.



It is false hope based on nothing but ignorance.

Answer 17

Come on! There is as much evidence that Jesus existed, as there is for Hercules.

Answer 18

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.













Repentance precedes faith in all.







You example why you refuse faith.