Interesting Things Christians Should Know:

Some say there is no mention of Jesus' life outside of scripture. Flavius Josephus, a prominent and well-known Jewish historian of antiquity writes in book 18 of The Antiquities of the Jews (a non-scriptural historical document):

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, did not die out" (Meier 1991, 61).

[From, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings/Bart D. Ehrman]


In God's Love,
Rev. Laura H.
(Deer Park UMC, Bailey)

I thought this was a well-established historical fact and that the argument was mainly an esoteric one about the meaning of his teachings. Do some people question whether he existed?

Hi BuyersAgent,

Historically, the fact isn't well established in the minds of many (unfortunately). A lot of people find fault in the fact that record of Jesus' life is "only" found in biblical scripture, and feel scripture isn't a reliable source of proof for Jesus' existence, as it would be entirely self-serving. It's a popular argument against faith for a lot of skeptics. This is, of course, not the case (as we can see from the Josephus writing posted above), though many mistakenly assume otherwise. On top of the Josephus writings, there are also multiple spiritual accounts of Jesus' life that fill up blank spots on pages far outside the range of what we know as scripture (though these are also technically pieces of "scripture" which simply weren't allowed into the agreed upon canon). As well, archeologists found (somewhat recently, actually)a tombstone in Israel with the inscription, "James, Brother of Jesus." This has contributed to further historical documentation of Jesus' life outside of the gospels and letters.


I've had a lot of conversations with a lot of atheists, and it helps to be informed when the question inevitably rises. ^^Those are two or three answers you could respond to those questions with, if the topic ever pops up unexpectedly over coffee. Take care!

In God's Love,
Rev. Laura H.
(Deer Park UMC, Bailey)

In the interest of balance, it should be noted that many scholars refute the authenticity of the Antiquities, pointing to potential interpolation and even forgery en masse.

What about the way we track years? It is 2013 AD, "After the Death" of Jesus. It is the most widely accepted and used civil calendar.

It was in 1582 that the Gregorian calendar was adopted in coordinance with Jesus' life.

I have noticed some scientists are now using BCE, "Before the Common Era", however.

For all you religious scholars, isn't Jesus mention in the Islam Quran but not mentioned in any of the Jewish scriptures?

Of course, I wonder if discussions of religion even belong in the Spiritual Room.

Jesus is considered a prophet and his teachings are mentioned in the Quran, yes. The Koran says that Jesus is a wonderful, humble, generous messenger of God who came down and revealed God's words to his people, the people of Israel. Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God, nor they believe that God ever chose to come down to earth in a form of a man to die for our sins to purify us and forgive us.

http://www.islamawareness.net/Christian ... quran.html

I think we would all love to have contemporaneous documentation of Jesus' life outside scripture. But, unfortunately there seems to be none. Even scriptural references to Jesus' are all long after the life and times of the historical Jesus.

One of the primary issues related to using Titus Flavius Josephus' Antiquities(c.94) to establish the existence of the historical Jesus is that it was not published until more than a half-century after the purported death of Jesus. And Antiquities contains no citations to any contemporaneous references related to the historical Jesus.

Unfortunately, there are also substantial indications that the historical Jesus is myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn't_There
http://www.thegodmovie.com/

Last I checked, there's no contemporary mention of Pontius Pilate ever having executed any person named Jesus. Jesus is not mentioned in any Jewish text, even though Christians believe Jesus was meant to be their messiah.* (More about this, later.) Writings about Jesus were always attributed to Jesus' followers rather than Jesus, himself. During the time of antiquity, there were many scholars who raised serious doubts about the very existence of Jesus, so it's not as if this argument is new. Their complaints included the realization that none of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about Jesus in his own lifetime and that the New Testament was probably not authentic. Eusebius was the first Bishop of Palestine, yet he was extremely critical of the New Testament, believing many of the works in the New Testament should be disputed:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html

I find it odd that Flavius Josephus is listed as some sort of contemporary of Jesus, therefore giving credibility to those who insist there is proof of the existence of Jesus. We should consider:
1. Josephus' birth occurred in 37 C.E., well past the alleged date of Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, he wasn't exactly an eyewitness.
2. Josephus wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels were written. In other words, biblical texts are being used as a claim that Jesus was written about outside of the bible and subsequent religious works.
3. Many scholars believe these short accounts of Jesus' life by Josephus were nothing more than a bit of fiction by the early Church.
4. Antiquities, the work being used to discuss how Jesus existed, discusses Hercules far more times than it ever mentions Jesus. (Seriously, you can Google this.) Antiquities, Book 1, Chapter 15, specifically discusses Hercules battling Libya and Antaeus, and that Hercules later got married and had a son. There are plenty of other books in Antiquities which also discuss the life of Hercules, in far more detail than any discussion about Jesus. We can therefore assume two things: A) Hercules played a far greater role in the life of Flavius Josephus than did Jesus. B) These books relied more on hearsay and common mythology than any eyewitness accounts, possibly being edited by the Church to include any mention of Jesus at all. We could even argue that Jesus is more of an afterthought in the book, as it truly doesn't stress his life nearly as often or thoroughly as it discusses Hercules' life.

It's unfortunate that our good reverend either lacked the critical research to know this or lacks the honesty to discuss it. (Critical means looking beyond what we want to believe and turning an objective eye to ALL research, including that which challenges previously-held notions.

This brings me to another point: It's hard not to trip over countless opinions stating something along the lines of, "Most scholars readily accept that Jesus existed."

This is entirely bogus.

What they mean to say is that most Christian scholars readily believe Jesus existed, because they either selectively edited or completely ignored all evidence to the contrary. Using Antiquities as a source of the existence of Jesus is an example of selective editing or deliberate ignorance. While I'd like to think that someone who studied religion would know this, it's become obvious that this just isn't the case. Christian scholars will go through leaps and bounds not to challenge their religion. True historians and religious scholars know the actual history and context of these things. When we understand this, it's actually rather easy to find many scholars who either entirely doubt the existence of Jesus or, at the very least, doubt any of the miracles attributed to him.

Which brings me to yet another point: We should remember, the Gospels of John were the last books written in the New Testament, occurring about 100 years after Jesus' (alleged) crucifixion (of which there is no record.) This is also the book that goes the into the most depth in discussing Jesus' miracles. So... Wouldn't you think that something as incredible as a bunch of miracles might be worthy of being discussed a bit sooner than a century after it occurred? Speaking of afterthoughts, this is kind of the Granddaddy of them all. It would help if we understood the historical context of what was going on at the time these books were written. It's also why I think the best evidence that Jesus didn't exist involves reading the bible critically. This also leads me to discuss:

* About why there's no mention of Jesus in any Jewish text: Jewish texts completely reject the idea that Jesus is the Messiah. This isn't because we hate Jesus or any other nonsense being spewed by those who truly do not grasp their own religion, but rather because Jesus simply never fulfilled the prophecies in the Tanakh nor embodied the qualifications of a Jewish messiah. Jews totally get this. Along with the historical scholars, we also know that Jesus' messianic deeds and miracles were written 100 years after his death. Add one plus one and what do you get? The answer will probably not include any historical context of a man who was meant to be a Jewish messiah.

It's also why there's serious scholarly doubt about the actual existence of a messiah named Jesus.

"...a wonderful, humble, generous messenger of God..."

Right, and the key word here is "a" as opposed to "the."

My Jewish mother did not "deny the life of Christ" but rather recognized that his life was a very special one, as plainly (she pointed out) reflected by the shift in society's calendar. As she explained, this clearly indicated the historic experience of someone having impressed the community as "wonderful, humble, and generous" in the most extraordinary way! and she also appreciated that his was a spiritual message of hope to mankind. It is not true that Jews have denied one of their own -- only that they do not follow his churches' rendition and interpretation of his life and message, and in any event deny that his was ever intended to become the motive for oppression or annihilation of humanity. This schism between Christ and his churches manifests even more apparently in divisions among various Christian faiths and creates a pseudo-paradox in his message that is really in mankind instead.

Overall, I feel the thread belongs elsewhere, as it is a provocative topic and I'd thought this was "the healing thread." I personally accept that the man known as Jesus of Nazareth lived and died, he was a Jew living in a community of Jews, but that fact does not render his churches' interpretation of his message accurate. Whether exploited political icon or sacred flesh, humanity was affected by his life. To the extent his coming has been used by men against other men to justify tragedy, suffering, misery and death, I figure he has been plenty mad all these 2,000 years too. "Forgive them, Father..."

"...those who truly do not grasp their own religion..."
Exactly.

Renaissance Lady,

I am afraid there are too many errors in your thesis to even counter. Perhaps you should get the whole picture and not just derive your facts from your conclusion.

Then you should have no trouble pointing out even one.