Both.

lovegrace



That site helped alot. Also incase all of you havent noticed, but most of these inferences about jesus never existing goes way back.

this is an email that isent a while back about people who argue the existance of Jesus on earth.


(http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jesussem.html this is Good.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t017.html This is good too.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/liberal.html This is a collection of these jesus seminar stuff.
Also look up "deists" on google and you find two links on the top portion of the page. "Deism" and "lists of Deists" are the name of the link by wikipedia.
Remeber that they use the arguement of shicfting the burden of proof.
Example: A watermelon is blue on the inside until you cut it, prove me wrong.
Not only that, the standard of proof is invalid since they (Diests, athiests, etc) don't believe in jesus miracles, prophecy, and his deity.
This is why they date the gospels after 70 A.D. because of the predictions of the temple fall. They date it not because of biblical dating, but because of belief that there isn't prophecy.
And the miracles are called into question not because they are invalid but because it goes contrary to their hypothesis of the impossiblity of miracles. A shred of proof on our part would be scrutinized anyway.

Example:
They are like the man who visited the psychiatrist and informed him of a grave problem: "I think I'm dead!" The psychiatrist said, "That is a serious problem. May I ask you a question? Do you believe that dead men bleed?" The man quickly answered, "Of course not. Dead men don't bleed." The psychiatrist reached forward, and taking a hat pin, he pricked the man's finger. The man looked down at his bleeding finger and exclaimed, "Well, what do you know! Dead men bleed after all!"

So just like evolutionists who use the facade of "science", so these men us the facade of "history" to make their claim"


2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.


1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

If you look up the "age of reason" or "age of enlightement" you see some diestic writing..You will see how all this ties into masonry, gnostism, knights templar, and witchcraft. and evrything that this world is moving to these days against the Gospel. I truly do belive that this will be the strong delusion that God will send into the world in the last days. God bless T2UL)

warriorofgod,
Your question seems to me like asking to prove the existence of the Roman emperor Augustus without mentioning Seutonius, Tacitus, or Cassius Dio...Those sources are pretty good, especially Josephus (don't let anyone scare you, although there are later interpolations in that passage, it has been deemed largely authentic by consensus).

And by the way, the Gospels and letters themselves are great evidence that you never, ever want to disregard, in either historical or spiritual circumstances. 1 Cor. 15 is the best place to look, not only for biblical proof of the resurrection, but in a way for Christ's existence, because the creed in verses 1-11 mentions an appearance to 500 brothers at once, and Paul then adds that most of them are still alive - in short a challenge to the Corinthians to check out people who saw the glorified Christ and who walked with him in his ministry. This is a piece of evidence that no one is soon to debunk.

Battles over the foundation of our faith are something we all must get used to, either within ourselves or for the unbelieving world. Many scholars and historians try to discredit the Gospels, the letters, Josephus, Tacitus, the Talmud, and Pliny, but mark my word, if Christ never claimed to be God or was resurrected from the dead, there wouldn't be nearly as much discrediting of these sources as there is. You have to ask yourself, do you really think that over a dozen gospels, many letters of apostles and church fathers, those four historical testimonies, and 20 centuries of Christian saints and Tradition are all built on some massive conspiracy? It's a lucrative subject for secular writers and those who want fame, but for those who think objectively, look at the larger picture, and have experienced the grace of God in Christ Jesus, i don't think it can be.

And one other thing...do not let this consume you! Seek God more and more in prayer. Apologetic feeds a questioning and doubting mind, but soon those doubts and questions will be hungry again, and you will come to depend on feeding them! Remember, above all else, that we are a people of Faith first; we can never prove empirically all that we want

_________________
Ben Ordaz

Hi warriorofgod...

Josephus' work "[i]Antiquities of the Jews[/i]" is a wonderful source. Ironically, modern atheists have attempted to discredit Josephus' references about Jesus. These atheistic and "activist" scholars, without using any tangible proof whatsoever, have attempted to assert that the references to Jesus were added posthumanously and falsely attributed to Josephus by early Christian "zealots" (Origen, in particular). However, every major ancient text of Josephus' writing includes these references -- including the earliest Arabic and Syriac translations.

There are incredible amounts of writings that validate the existance of Jesus. In fact, there are more references to Jesus in ancient texts than can be found of Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. The scholars, however, weigh the fact that references to Caesar and Alexander were included in secular and formal Roman writings. References to Christ, according to these critics, were mostly relegated to the writings of "biased" Christians.

However, there are other secular references to Jesus Christ found in non-Christian texts. Roman historians and writers, such as Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Lucian and Celsus, all included references (some quite critical, yet validating the existence nonetheless) of Jesus as early as 50 A.D. There are also references to Jesus, of course, by the early Christian apologist, Justin Martyr (in writings to well known Romans, including secular Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius).

The Jewish Talmud (in [i]Sanhedrin 43a[/i]) includes a reference to the crucifixion of Jesus. The Talmud even used the abbreviation "Y.Sh.V." in the name Yeshu that is only used for a Jew convicted of idolatry (meaning that his name will be erased from memory). Most non-biased scholars realize that the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are, indeed, first-hand SOURCE documents written during the time of Jesus. This is a great source of the historical existence of Christ -- even if the atheist or activist historians want to argue about the documents' inherent bias.

Ultimately, the argument with unbelievers isn't about reasoning the historical existence of Jesus. Only the most ardent and biased atheists will deny the historical existence of Jesus. It is difficult to prick past their inherent bias -- because they don't WANT Jesus to have existed. The ultimate question is the living Christ. It is the testimony of believers that Christ not only existed in history -- but still lives and rules as the Creator.

Anyway, I hope it helps. If you google some of the names of the secular historians and writers, you will probably find some of their references. I'll be praying for you in this journey!

:-)

_________________
Christopher

I don't know if these have been mentioned...

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]

----------
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

----------------

Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."

-------------

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

Excerpted from: http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

You all have been very helpful in my quest for answers. I have to say that it is mostly Deists that are trying to prove that Christ never existed. It is much different then Athiest.

Everything that was given to me is good but there is this one plaguing question. Why weren't there more writings about Jesus in the contemporary period about his miracles and crucifixion? If he was seen by so many witnesses, why wasn't there more written? I know that there are biases but it is on both sides. We make the presuppistion that the new testament is accurate. The oppsers bring the presuppostion that it is inaccurate. If we were to all look at this objectively, we would see that the good point of "why wasn't there more evidence" seems valid? I trust the new testamnet to be valid. I also know the Lord myself. But the this very point cause my eybrows to raise and it is very stumbling. Everyone of you have made very good defense for Christ historically. There is a double standard on some of the opposers arguements but still the point remains, why the lack of literature about Jesus?

Many speak of books being burned, and contraversial writings, and how there is a substantial amount of validity to all the charachters the bible describes like pilate and caiaphas, but still no literary work outside the new testament about Christ. Not references to christ, but christ himself! Without faith it is impossible to please God but i thought this whole time that Christianity is not built off blind faith. My heart Loves the Lord, i just don't know why this would be like this. As i have said before, i think this will be the strong delusion sent to the earth. And there will be nothing we can do to defend ourselves. It just hurts my spiritual pride knowing i don't have a solid answer, which i Study so much to do.

Some good questions I think. My question about the question is this:

Who would have had motivation to write things down?
Who specifically?

Of the 5000 converted at pentecost, I don't think many of them said, "Now that I believe in Jesus, I'm going to go record the things Jesus did so future people will not doubt!" Some would of course. Some did - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I would imagine that most people did not see a need to record about Jesus since those four did.

Next, consider yourself. Have you written anything down that people could look at in 2000 years and say, "This person believed in the miracles of Jesus!" (not counting this post! ;-))

Next, consider the pagans of the time. Some of them no doubt did not believe in Jesus' miracles at all. Why would they bother recording the supposed miracles of a poor con-man? If they did believe in the miracles, then they still would not want to record them because Jesus preached against them (the pagans) and their lifestyle!

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, remember who Jesus appeared to. He didn't come and visit kings and princes or important people. He ministered to the poor and afflicted. We also know that from almost the beginning of His ministry He avoided cities and stuck to the country (Mark 1:45). I have heard it said before that Jesus came and had as little impact as possible...to show the power of God through the gospel: that even though Jesus' whole ministry was within a tiny tiny area of the world, even though He avoided large cities and did not mingle with important people, even though He spoke to crowds of beggars and destitute farmers, even though He appeared to only a relatively few amount of people after His resurrection (He could have traveled the world and appeared to millions!), even though all of these things - Christianity spread to the ends of the Earth and has flourished throughout all of history!!!

Glory to God who has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty!!!

_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

Great insight about the gospel being powerful at the end, never thought of it like that.

It makes sense to me that "not many wise" involves not many educated scribes and pharisees in Jesus' local area would have been willing to write about Him and give credance to a troublesome sect.

Personally I wonder if the "strong delusion" may be contemporary Christianity being molded into an age of so-called "Christ-consciousness" and "love for neighbors", gone global. Enter the false messiah to unite everyone.

I think what most don't understand is the standards for ancient literature compared to modern. We like to think in terms of newspapers and tv because that's the way we've been trained. Us modern want "the facts and just the facts". Ancient writers did not just focus on verbatum facts. A biography such as the Gospels would relate general facts as well as the main idea of the person speaking. They were not as concerned with fact for fact and word for word quotations. Often these are taken as errors or contradictions.

The real fact is that the New Testament is the most documented widely circulated books of antiquity. If someone wants to question the validity of Jesus then they cannot believe in Julius Caesar, Plato, Homer. The number of manuscripts, the accuracy, even in manuscripts of different langauges is an embarrassment to other ancient writings.

Even if you take the liberal dating of one gospel, in this case Mark. The liberal dating is it wasn't written until 70 AD. If this is the case, which it is not, that is like writting a book now that says John Kennedy was never assassinated. That was just 44 years ago and people would come out and say "that's not right because I was there when it happened!"

Any one who is willing to look at the Gospels with an open mind cannot deny the accuracy and historical fact of the New Testament.

As I stated before I love this kind of stuff, it just gets more and more interesting as you study!

In Him,
geddingsm

_________________
marvin geddings

Thats all very good. But homer ceaser plato all had outside sources to show that they lived. Jesus, besides the four gospels, has no outside sources. I know that people may or may not have had the motivation to write so that 2000 aers down the line people would know, but why not? Anyway, you all have been very helpful and i know that one day we need to be prepared because we will not have an answer against all accusation. We will have to be like Jesus who opened not his mouth but led himself unto the slaughter. God blees you all and im sure i'll have more in the future.