[For those who doubt Christ lived.] Tacitus and Josephus mention Christ. Why believe Christ was a myth?
407907
thnx fer the solid evidence. i knew before that christ had been proven to have lived as a human but didn't know who to cite
286041
Here it is another 15 year old sermon from an unbeliever . . . and for an unbeliever . . . I am more familiar with the scriptures and historical documents than some of these believers.\n\nWHO IS JESUS CHRIST?\n\nSince Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah) walked this earth as a human 2,000 years ago, there has been a controversy over who he really was. The Bible tells us in many places that there is only one true God (Deu. 6:4; Mal. 2:10; Mark 12:32; Rom. 3:30; Jam. 2:19; etc.). So where does Yeshua fit into the Godhead? \n\nMost modern Christians have been taught that Jesus is the second co-equal "person" in a triune Godhead composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, many (if not most) Christians don't really understand the Trinity. Other believers today, perceiving problems with the Trinity doctrine, have adopted a belief in the "Oneness" of God which is similar to the ancient doctrine of Modalism. \n\nBefore we can truly understand who the Messiah is, we need to look at the historical background of first-century Jewish religion and subsequent philosophical/religious doctrines that arose to explain his identity. This is going to examine the beliefs of first-century Jews regarding the Godhead and present the succeeding theories put forth to define who Yeshua is. Then we will discuss by harmonizing the Scriptures with this information to better understand what the Bible really says about the identity of the Messiah. \n\nFirst, let's start by looking at what first-century C.E. Jewish religion believed about the Godhead. There has been a tendency by scholars to define first-century orthodox monotheistic Judaism in rather restrictive terms. Jewish literature or beliefs from that time frame that seem to stray from the accepted norm have been reinterpreted to accommodate Trinitarianism or used to prove that Judaism was derived from the polytheistic religions surrounding Israel. \n\nRegarding how modern scholars tend to view first-century Jewish religion as either totally monotheistic or essentially polytheistic, University of Manitoba Professor Larry W. Hurtado wrote: \n\nI suggest that on both sides of the issue . . . there has been a tendency to proceed deductively from a priori presumptions of what monotheism must mean, instead of building up a view inductively from the evidence of how monotheism actually operated in the thought and practice of ancient Jews. There seems to be an implicit agreement on both sides that more than one transcendent being of any significance complicates or constitutes a weakening of or threat to monotheism. Those who see first-century Jewish religion as monotheistic tend, therefore, to downplay the significance and attributes given by ancient Jews to any transcendent beings other than God. For these scholars often, ancient Jewish monotheism must mean that the descriptions of such beings are largely rhetorical. Though I am convinced regarding some examples, I am not sure that the descriptions are always purely rhetoric . . . \n\nThose on the other side of the issue tend to emphasize the honorific ways in which transcendent beings other than God are described and the prominent positions they occupy in the religious conceptions reflected in ancient Jewish texts, alleging that first-century Jews were not really monotheists after all. It is clear that ancient Jews were not characteristically monists or unitarians, but does this mean that they were not monotheists? That is, on both sides there is a tendency to proceed as if we can know in advance what "monotheism" must mean, which turns out to be a very modern, monistic form of monotheism, and can accordingly evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs as to whether or how closely they meet an a priori standard of "pure" monotheism. ("What Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament) \n\nAs the above quote shows, Profe
740595
Would that be classified as another mystery of Christ? I believe even those who do not know of Jesus must feel his presents withnin creation. He is all in all. Yes interesting.
537128
I see it as myth.  Of course, myths have different purposes, such as explaining where we came from (Genesis) or exaggerating the tales of a hero (The New Testament).  I don't think the world was created in 6 days or that the human races began with Adam and Eve, but I think Jesus was real.  I don't think every thing the NT says happened actually happened the way it says it did, but there's some truth in it.
928543
There is both Biblical and non Biblical evidence. Josephus was a Jewish historian of his day. Never a christian BTW. He gave an account of Jesus is his record. Biblically, David the King wrote a Psalm all about the crucifixion a method of execution not used until the Romans invented it some 500 years later. Proof there is not. If there were we would all be damned because proof makes faith of no effective and people as saved by the grace of God through faith. Without faith we die...   Jim
648908
I think they believe in the existence of Christ, but do not believe He is/was the Messiah.  But He is!
455797
Yes! I love that I've found someone else who knows this. (I watch a lot of History Channel and learned a lot about lost gospels that weren't included simply because of the politics of the day.) \n\nThe earliest gospel about Jesus was actually written about three decades after his death, and yet it speaks as if it were a first hand account. The author wouldn't have known Jesus. \n\nAnd I don't know why it's such an atrocity for Jesus to be depicted as human. He was. And he very well could've been married. Jewish men two thousand years ago were expected to marry. You couldn't be a rabbi without being married, and he was called rabbi. \n\nAlso, many Old Testament stories were much older in origin. Like for example the flood story came from the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient Sumerian epic poem. The bible is not history. It's a collection of myths and tales. \n\nAnd it's true about the older holidays. When the early church was trying to convert everyone to their religion, they overshadowed old religions' holidays to make the conversion easier for the pagans. Christmas is at the winter solstice when pagans celebrated the return of the sun, when the days would get longer. In the bible, it clearly says that Jesus was born in the spring when sheppards were out with their flocks. So it's obvious that they deliberately put the birth of their savior in the winter.\n\nReligions have always been fluid. They mix and interact with other religions and myths they come in contact with. Tales have been passed down for thousands of years and always change as they go. Nothing is original anymore.
305065
I think that whoever is to be blamed, it makes no difference, because Jesus HAD to die somehow in order for everyone to be saved.  If Jesus didn't die, we would all be condemned to Hell.  It so happens that the Jews did it.  Perhaps they did not get the brunt of the blame.  But does it matter?\n\nTo some of the above posters, yes, there have been many injustices that have occurred at the hands of Christians as well as many other religious folks.  But that does not change the basic fact that Jesus died for our sins and that we are human.  We make mistakes.  But God does not make mistakes.  Everything happens for a reason.  And God knows infinitely more than you or I, whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not.\n\nTo another poster--Heron By The Sea...your logic is good but some of your facts are wrong.  Yes, Rome did control the land where the Jews lived.  But they knew little about Jesus.  They were the most powerful civilization in the world...and do you really think they feared anyone?  Much less one man (Jesus) and his movement that polarized Jews of His day?  I don't think they really gave much of a d@mn about Jesus, OR the Jews, for that matter.  Pilate basically did not care anything about the trial until the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees said that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews."  Once he heard that, if Jesus was really a threat to Rome, do you think he would offer to release Jesus?  I don't think he would.  At that point, the Jews wanted Barabbas released.  So yes, it was the JEWS who wanted Jesus dead.\n\nSecondly, the Bible was NOT altered by Rome or Romans.  The Bible is a collection of books that were selected for the truth and sincerity and accuracy of the faith.  Yes through time there are many different translations today, but I would say the major translations have not been altered to the point where such central ideas have been warped and distorted beyond their original meaning and truth.  I see that you are a religious studies major, so I am not going to fully dismiss everything you say, but based on our Christian faith, God would not allow such things to be distorted (that's where the Holy Spirit comes in).
982221
There is no ( or at the very least, precious little) evidence of a person called Jesus outside of the bible.  Xians will say Josephus mentioned him, but in fact, the only translation we have of Josephus was done by a christian writer in the 4th century...we don't have it in the original Latin.  And what is mentioned is very weak and open to interpretation and very likely was subject to interpolation.\n\nThe Romans were meticulous record keepers.  If Jesus existed, and had fostered the kind of revolution that would get their attention by threatening Roman rule, performing miracles, there would be copious writings about him from the Romans, and other sources.\n\nPaul the Apostle is agreeably the earliest christian writer, and he wrote probably a couple decades after the putative events.  Yet Paul makes no reference to a recently living Christ...and if you read his works separate from the rest of the NT, he seems to be writing of a supernatural creature who fought a battle, died and rose again in a spiritual realm, eons ago.  Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and yet he makes no mention of a pilgramage to Golgotha, or the tomb or any sites that would be shrines to a real person recently living, crucified and risen again ascending into heaven. Paul is bizarrely disinterested in anything relating to a real physical Jesus.\n\nAll other accounts, were written much later.  The earliest Gospel of Mark (by the way, it wasn't written by anybody called Mark, it is anonymous) couldn't have been written any earlier than 40-50 years after the events.  The Gospels all contradict each other as to Jesus life, miracles and death.  I recommend any of Randall Helms books on the New Testament and Gospels for a detailed overview of the problems.\n\nIt really is quite interesting if you are prepared to have an open mind about it.  Jesus, if he existed, was at best a wandering prophet/holyman/philospher.  We have lots of legendary heroes with stories about them, like King Arthur, William Tell...but we know they never actually existed.  I think it more likely he never actually existed, and was created as a "founding father" in the heroic tradition by the early church.
1074931
Do you people not realize that "Jesus" was just a man like any other man. Historical facts. Let me guess, the bible? The word of "God"? What did they hold a press conference so that they could get all the facts from "Jesus" and print them in one "historically accurate book"? I don't think so. I'm sorry but the bible is nothing more than a person or group of peoples perspective on a point in time. \nJesus was a human being! He had needs and desires just like every one else. Religion doesn't want to admit that because what, it will make him seem less "God like"? \nI think you people need to re-read the book. Yes "The Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction. But I believe that a lot of the historical premises is based in truth. To what extent I don't know. The same with the bible. There may be a lot of truth there, but just like so much other written history, facts get lost or changed to suit the intentions of the author. \nCall it what you will, but I like to believe that maybe, just maybe the bloodline of Christ still exist out there today. What would be so wrong with that?
333941
Jesus certainly existed - no serious historian doubts this (the handful of pop religion books on the topic notwithstanding.) There is plenty of evidence, written and otherwise - from the still extant ruins of Peter's house in Capernaum (Jesus' home base), to his mention (the second mention is not interpolation) in Josephus' "Antiquities", and Tacitus' reference to him.\n\nAs to the second coming of Jesus, none knows the hour, or the way. None of us should be confident we'll see it whether  we live five years or five hundred. It happens when it happens, in the way that it happens. "Stay awake", we are told, live an exemplary life. Every day is to be lived as though it were the dawn of the day of the Lord.\n\nAs Mother Theresa said, "Yesterday is past, and tomorrow is not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin."
560074
Why is "The DaVinci Code" not fiction anymore? I missed that announcement...Anyhoo, if you want to hear solid evidence for Christ, I suggest reading The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. I am reading it right now, so I can't tell you too much about it, but he talks to all sorts of scholars, some Christian Bible Scholars, some atheists like himself. He presents the evidence (eyewitness, documentary, corroborating, rebuttal, scientific, psychological, circumstantial, and fingerprint evidence). I'm still in the chapter about eyewitness evidence, but it is really, really good. Reading this is a great way to get multiple views, so you can choose.
167670
I'd like to add to your question.  The fact the Jesus (peace be upon him) was supposedly resurrected, doesn't that negate the fact that he died ??  I mean, if he's alive in Heaven, then he is not really dead for our sins.  I'm confused...
1081825
Allowing that one does not accept the prophecy from the Old Testament as proof, many of his time refer to his actual existence.  Among these are Josephus, the Jewish Historian, Pliny the younger, Tacitus, Lucian and Hadrian.\nIn all fairness, none of these knew the historical Jesus.  In addition, none of the writers of the 4 gospels directly knew Jesus either.  Paul, however, relates the story of how Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus three times in the Book of Acts.  Despite several of these sources, in addition to the Babylonian Talmud, providing reasonable evidence to Jesus' existence, there is no intellectual exercise which will provide this, IMHO, nor do I think it should.  Each is only heuristic, rather than definitive, in its essence.\nNeither will the issue of faith alone provide any proof, as much as some would have it so; faith, by itself proves nothing except that one believes.  One may have faith alone in all sorts of absurdities.\n\nThe difficulty comes when we undeniably understand that we have both a material and spiritual component as human beings.  If we didn't, however, then this whole discussion would just be neurons bumping into one another and would be meaningless.\nThe spiritual component is very difficult to explain in any sense of materialism.  Philosophy treats any ventures into the realm of the spiritual as fantasy, at least that which cannot be verified.\nHowever, if faith in Jesus Christ created a real bond, then this bond would have to be created not only by the believer, but the respondent.  The respondent, in addition, would have to prove that he was God. The difficulty comes as to whether this is possible. How does one verify that God exists?\nBriefly, the Bible teaches us that each one of us who comes to Him must love Him because he loved us first.  In 2 Timothy 3:7, we read about those who seek to learn but never come to the truth.  Paul teaches us that we must love God if we want to know him. (Also see Ephesians 3:17; Philippians 1:9; Colossians 2:2; and also 1 John 2:5.) If we want knowledge without love, it isn’t enough.  We first see Him "as through a glass darkly"(1 Corinthians 13:12) but through our trials and efforts for Him, we come to see more clearly.  \nI suggest that the truth of Jesus lies not in any intellectual sense but in a personal relationship which must be individual: you can't believe because someone else believes and you can't discover it because someone else knows.  Intellectual truth leads to skepticism and denial.  While it is good to be skeptical of things, even Jesus' existence and association with the resurrection mysteries you cite, the real proof comes in the consistency of God's promise.  Be forewarned: new believers usually suffer persecutions.  In fact, persecutions are promised to all believers (2 Timothy 3:12.)  Not everyone wants you to believe in the truth of Jesus Christ.
385541
Jesus even said MULTIPLE times that he is the SON. and to worship his Father. \n\nAS well as saying that he was SENT by the Father. \n\nhow could he be a medium or a spritist, when he was only working for the one whom sent him?\n\nJesus is not God (please not the capital) but he is a god (note: no capital). many worship him, yes. but the question should be... why dont they worship God? when clearly Jesus did?\n\n...*shrug* and thats my 2 cents
661487
YOUR "FACT" is completely flawed, I keep hearing so-called experts on television say that, and it's complete rubbish.  In Ancient Judaism there were always so-called "priests" that served as the religious leaders of Jewish society.  Many of them never married as they remained free of anything secular (including family life), often traveling into the wilderness and building entire communities that were similar to what we know as monasteries.  Research the term "Qumran" on yahoo or google as it is one of the most popular and well-researched Jewish monasteries that actually existed during the lifetime of Jesus.  In fact, Qumran was located very close to the caves that held the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is probable that the very UNMARRIED Essene monks at Qumran authored the scrolls, as many of the scrolls outlined the lifestyle of the Qumran inhabitants in detail.\n\nFurthermore, if you read any of the writings of Paul in the New Testament of the bible, you will see that only a few years/decades after Christ religious men were clearly encouraged NOT to marry, as families would serve as distractions from God's service, and do you really think that in a few decades habitual tradition concerning religious men changed that rapidly? \n\nBut I DO agree with you that it wouldn't be so bad if Jesus did have a wife and children.  It's just that it doesn't fit at all with how we know Jesus lived. Therefore, it's just not true.  \n\nAnd as far as "The DaVinci Code" controversy, I seriously doubt anyone feels threatened by the novel and movie because they are "insecure" in their own faith.  THATS NOT THE CONTROVERSY.  I know that on TV the media is talking it up, and I know that some, not most, but SOME Christians have been complaining about the movie.  But it has NOTHING to do with their own faith.  It is the duty of any good Christian to have compassion for the non-believer.  The Great Commission according to the Bible is to go and teach the world the Good news that Jesus Christ is Lord.  That is something that should be held close to the heart and sacred for any Christian.  \n\nSO, I don't think ANY Chritian opposes "The DaVinci Code" because he is afraid for his OWN faith, but because of the damage it does to the possible or POTENTIAL faith of the non-believer.  It is hard enough in this world to spread the Word and to share the Gospel without these multi-billion dollar enterprises like "The DaVinci Code" working directly against you.  In other words, the Christian believes that he is already informed of the Good News, and so of course he does not feel personally threatened by a novel and movie.  But any Christian or layperson should be intelligent enough to also realize that there are plenty of weak-minded people out there that will be duped into believing the book and movie are fact, and in believing such a tale it is that much harder for them to become a believer; to become a Christian.\n\nThe DaVinci Code story is passed off as fact.  And it just isn't at all.  It's fiction.  Yet because people believe it, there literally are those among us now in this world that believe Christ was not divine at all, but a man that married, had children, and that such children prove Jesus was NOT the Son of God.  That's the danger of this story and movie that you see some clergymen talk about on TV.\n\nThat said, I am a Christian and I WILL be seeing the DaVinci Code, as any story relating to church history attracts me greatly.  I can't wait to see the movie after church this Sunday!
1185485
consider:  virtually NO information appears in historical textx that can verify the existence of Jesus.  \n\nConsider: Most of the items in the Bible that can be examined for their historical accuracy, including the importance of Jerusalem in the ancient world, have been found, through archaeology, to be false, or gross exagerations.