Is Jesus historricaly proven?

[RichardT]

Well, is he?

[RajunCajun86]

yes - according to my historically accurate, inerrant Bible

[RichardT]

yes - according to my historically accurate, inerrant Bible

:) , I like this reply very much ! Thanks

[arunma]

Most serious non-Christian scholars believe in the historicity of Jesus, though they obviously deny the supernatural elements to his life and ministry. Among non-Christians, the Bible is not considered to be inerrent or even inspired. But all of the New Testament (and much of the Old Testament) is considered to be a valid historical document, minus the miracles of course.

[HumbleMan]

I know I'll probably be labelled a heretic in baptist circles for this, but I was saved hearing the Gospel preached. I don't need the bible to know Christ is real, is the Son of God, is my Lord and Savior. I have faith, and it has never wavered from the day I was saved.

This is not to say that I don't believe the bible is inerrant word of God. But I live by faith, not by sight.

[RajunCajun86]

I don't need the bible to know Christ is real, is the Son of God, is my Lord and Savior.
but whoever preached to you was preaching from the Bible

[arunma]

but whoever preached to you was preaching from the Bible

Not necessarily. For example, in the second century, many Christians preached without the Bible (in fact, the Bible had not even been bound into one book at this time). There was a time when Christianity was spread by word of mouth. You've probably heard about the "telephone" game, which is used as evidence that oral messages can become diluted over time. It turns out that this is only true in highly literate cultures, where people have become so used to recording information with the written word that it is hard to transmit information orally. In the days of the early church, it would have been far easier to preach the Gospel without having the Scriptures readily available.

What I'm trying to say is that while Scripture is our primary and most reliable record of the Gospel, it isn't necessarily the only one.

[RajunCajun86]

in the second century
but i was not talking about the second century
What I'm trying to say is that while Scripture is our primary and most reliable record of the Gospel, it isn't necessarily the only one.what other source do you have for The Gospel of Jesus Christ?

[arunma]

but i was not talking about the second century

Yes I know, but I thought it might be relevant to make an observation, and to make note of the fact that the Gospel of Christ is a historical reality, and not merely words on paper.

what other source do you have for The Gospel of Jesus Christ?

The church has always maintained a knowledge of the Gospel through its various traditions. Of course in modern times, most of these traditions have taken written form.

[Andyman_1970]

Well, is he?

Absolutely. That’s probably one of my primary driving forces in the study of the Scripture is that this was a real person in a real place at a real time…………..not just some historical figure that dropped down out of the sky on a back lit cloud wearing a white bathrobe and a light blue beauty pageant sash……………LOL. Interestingly enough there is a good amount of Talmidic literature and portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that either provide some contemporary background or confirm accounts from the Gospels.

The current author I’m reading, a Jewish history professor, has done a significant amount of historical work on Jesus that for the most part confirms the Gospels. Of all the ancient rabbi’s there is none with as many documented teachings as we have of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels.


But all of the New Testament (and much of the Old Testament) is considered to be a valid historical document, minus the miracles of course.

There’s a bit of secular scholarship in the last few years that has issues with the Johanine books……..especially with respect to the John’s Gospel as to it’s historic reliability.

[RajunCajun86]

Of course in modern times, most of these traditions have taken written form.
right, The Gospel we know is from the Bible, the oral Bible has long been lost

[arunma]

There’s a bit of secular scholarship in the last few years that has issues with the Johanine books……..especially with respect to the John’s Gospel as to it’s historic reliability.

Quite right, but this has always been the case, has it not? Even I, without any scholarly knowledge, tend to think of the Gospel of John as a theological treatise rather than a chronological account of the ministry of Christ. While I do believe that this Gospel is historically accurate, it seems to me as if John carefully selected specific sayings and accounts of Christ so as to give us a greater understanding of the Son of God. Therefore, John's intentions were more theological than historical. And it makes perfect sense, since by the time John was writing, historical knowledge about Christ was already present among the churches. As such, the importance of John seems to be in its affirmation of Christ's divinity and supremacy.

A bit off topic, but John has never been my favorite among the Gospels, despite that it is the most popular one among evangelicals. Don't get me wrong, every book of the Bible is good in its own right. But without the parables, something just seems missing. It seems to me that with all the theology and Christology that we get from the Pauline epistles, the Gospel of John seems a bit superfluous. Oh well, just thinking out loud...

[arunma]

right, The Gospel we know is from the Bible, the oral Bible has long been lost

Well, not entirely. For example, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, iconography is considered to be canonical. That is to say, they believe that historical and theological information about Christ has been conveyed by means of the canonical icons that are in use by this church.

[Andyman_1970]

Quite right, but this has always been the case, has it not? Even I, without any scholarly knowledge, tend to think of the Gospel of John as a theological treatise rather than a chronological account of the ministry of Christ. While I do believe that this Gospel is historically accurate, it seems to me as if John carefully selected specific sayings and accounts of Christ so as to give us a greater understanding of the Son of God. Therefore, John's intentions were more theological than historical. And it makes perfect sense, since by the time John was writing, historical knowledge about Christ was already present among the churches. As such, the importance of John seems to be in its affirmation of Christ's divinity and supremacy.

I agree, John did have a theological agenda when he wrote the Gospel. His audience was in Asia Minor and the first 3 miracles in John’s Gospel are direct parallels to the pagan gods of Asia Minor……………..John was essentially saying “my God is better than your god”.

A bit off topic, but John has never been my favorite among the Gospels, despite that it is the most popular one among evangelicals. Don't get me wrong, every book of the Bible is good in its own right. But without the parables, something just seems missing. It seems to me that with all the theology and Christology that we get from the Pauline epistles, the Gospel of John seems a bit superfluous. Oh well, just thinking out loud...

Matthew and Luke are my favorites as far as the Gospels go……………however John uses a lot of rabbinic midrash in his writings which I find fun figuring out.

[RajunCajun86]

Well, not entirely. For example, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, iconography is considered to be canonical. That is to say, they believe that historical and theological information about Christ has been conveyed by means of the canonical icons that are in use by this church.
my fault i should have specified: The Gospel that those of us in this forum are to preach is recorded in The Bible

[arunma]

my fault i should have specified: The Gospel that those of us in this forum are to preach is recorded in The Bible

Of course. The Gospel as it is recorded in the Bible is perfect and complete.

[arunma]

I agree, John did have a theological agenda when he wrote the Gospel. His audience was in Asia Minor and the first 3 miracles in John’s Gospel are direct parallels to the pagan gods of Asia Minor……………..John was essentially saying “my God is better than your god”.

Really? I did not know that. Very interesting.


Matthew and Luke are my favorites as far as the Gospels go……………however John uses a lot of rabbinic midrash in his writings which I find fun figuring out.

Awhile ago I would have certainly gone with Matthew. But I'm starting to do some serious study on the parables of Luke. They seem quite deep.

[Andyman_1970]

BTW Those 3 main gods are:

Ascelapius – the god of healing
Demeter – the god of provision (or the “grocery god”)
Dionesis – the god that turns water into wine

What were the 3 first miracles in John's Gospel???

[Andyman_1970]

But I'm starting to do some serious study on the parables of Luke. They seem quite deep.

When I was teaching the college Sunday School class at church we went through Luke............it took us a year and a half verse by verse...........

With very few exceptions the parables are typical rabbinic parables, with a few twists and Jesus' point if view of course. It's intersting to see the other ways those parables were taught in His day.

[RaginCajun88]

Yes. Jesus is not just a Christian thing. Other religions give an acount of Jesus being here on this earth and doing great things.

[mont974x4]

The more it is tested the more the Bible is proven to be historically acurate. I believe one athiest turned beliver started out just hating the book of Luke and set to prove it all wrong, in the process he found Luke to be far superior than any other text and that ultimately led him to Christ. Sorry, I can;t remember his name at this time.

There are more secular texts that support the biblical account of human history than any other text.

[arunma]

The more it is tested the more the Bible is proven to be historically acurate. I believe one athiest turned beliver started out just hating the book of Luke and set to prove it all wrong, in the process he found Luke to be far superior than any other text and that ultimately led him to Christ. Sorry, I can;t remember his name at this time.

Was it Lee Strobel? He's the journalist who set out to disprove the resurrection of Christ by means of his journalistic talents, and ended up concluding that it occured as recorded in the Scriptures.

[mont974x4]

It may have been Lee Strobel, I am reading his book The Case for Faith now. hmm maybe I should slow down and just read one book (in addition to my daily Bible reading) at a time. lol

[Sword-In-Hand]

We'll see alot of times now that people aren't trying as much to disprove Jesus existed, but rather to discredit Him.

Has anyone read the book The Pagan Christ? We have it in the bookstore I work at. The title caught my interest, because I thought it was referring to how American treats Jesus like a pagan diety, but that wasn't the case at all.

I've only skimmed through some of it, so I can't pinpoint exactly what it's about but here are some of the jists. The referrals to Asia Minor made me think of it. Oh and the author is a Christian professor. But he says that the Bible is theologically accurate, but not so much historically. He says the Gospel according to John is the least historically accurate of all the gospels. He sites that most of the information written in the gospels was taken from Egyptian mythology. For instance, Jesus and Mary are a direct parallel to Isis and Horus and the resurrection of Lazarus was "borrowed" from an earlier Egyptian story.

Just wondering if anyone has read or seen it. Strangely the guy says that while he's disproven the literal meaning of how we take the Bible, it's strengthened his faith in Christ tenfold. Seems an oxymoron to me, but whaddaya think?

[RajunCajun86]

Seems an oxymoron to meor just regular moron;)

[JPPT1974]

Was it Lee Strobel? He's the journalist who set out to disprove the resurrection of Christ by means of his journalistic talents, and ended up concluding that it occured as recorded in the Scriptures.

If you ask me the guy is only lying through his teeth
And denying who Christ is and what He stands for!

[mont974x4]

If you ask me the guy is only lying through his teeth
And denying who Christ is and what He stands for!


Lee actually started out to disprove Christ, God, and the Bible and in his research has become a believer. His books are basically pictures of his research and answer the most common objections that atheists and agnostics usually have. Where he was fervent in his opposition to Christ, he is now fervent in his support and proving Christ. It is an encouraging testimony.

[HumbleMan]

I read Case for Christ a few years ago. While dry and academic, it made a very persuasive argument for Christ. I'll give Strobel credit, while many atheists would have tried to make the outcome conform to their belief system, he kept an open mind and made decisions based on his research.

[JPPT1974]

The one and only place to
Go for in order to know that
Jesus is real and is sitting next
Right next to God is the BIBLE!!

[mont974x4]

The one and only place to
Go for in order to know that
Jesus is real and is sitting next
Right next to God is the BIBLE!!

I certainly agree, but I am already saved. When thinking about discussing the accuracy of the Bible with non-believers I often bring up the secular texts that confirm it.

Remember, not everyone sees the Bible has having any authority.

[catch21wide]

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, who was the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard said this, "Based upon the eyewitness testimony in scripture, if the case for the reliability of the resurrection Jesus Christ was presented in front of an unbiased court, it would be proven to be a historical FACT." Frank Morrison was a British lawyer who wanted to disprove the resurrection. He wrote a book entitled Who Moved The Stone. The first chapter was titled "The Book that Refused to be Written". From chapters 2 and following, he gave the evidences that SUPPORTED the resurrection and he gave his heart and life to Christ. It is a very good book may I add. I hope I have helped in some fashion.

[DeaconDean]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, not are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them alone.

Well, is he?

My first response would be, why does Jesus Christ have to be proven in the first place?

My second response would be, if He is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, where exactly would faith come in?

Now don't misunderstand me, there would nothing wrong with valid proof. Thomas had to have Jesus' resurrection proven to him.

"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." -John 20:24-28

But Jesus did say one thing about this whole incidence:

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." -John 20:29

Paul told us:

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" -2 Cor. 5:7

In my own personal opinion, I don't have to have Jesus proven to me. My belief in the risen Savior is enough for me. I know that He lived and died and rose from the grave because I have His Spirit indwelling in me. And He testifies of Jesus. (Jn. 15:26)

God Bless

Till all are one.

[christian73]

Well, is he?
If you want a non-biblical reference of Jesus' existance (for those that think the Bible is not perfect), look at the Complete Works of Josephus. The Bible should be proof enough, though.

[RajunCajun86]

The Bible should be proof enough
yes you are correct

[JPPT1974]

If you want a non-biblical reference of Jesus' existance (for those that think the Bible is not perfect), look at the Complete Works of Josephus. The Bible should be proof enough, though.

Amen to that!:amen:

[RichardT]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, not are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them alone.



My first response would be, why does Jesus Christ have to be proven in the first place?

My second response would be, if He is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, where exactly would faith come in?

Now don't misunderstand me, there would nothing wrong with valid proof. Thomas had to have Jesus' resurrection proven to him.

"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." -John 20:24-28

But Jesus did say one thing about this whole incidence:

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." -John 20:29

Paul told us:

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" -2 Cor. 5:7

In my own personal opinion, I don't have to have Jesus proven to me. My belief in the risen Savior is enough for me. I know that He lived and died and rose from the grave because I have His Spirit indwelling in me. And He testifies of Jesus. (Jn. 15:26)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Right, but what if you wanted to put up a case for it and try to get people saved?

[RichardT]

If you want a non-biblical reference of Jesus' existance (for those that think the Bible is not perfect), look at the Complete Works of Josephus. The Bible should be proof enough, though.

the Bible is PERFECT, and secular/pagan accounts of Jesus would be a great scource to prove his existance.

[DeaconDean]

Right, but what if you wanted to put up a case for it and try to get people saved?

All I can do is to preach the gospel and let the Holy Spirit work to it's end. I can present Jesus in the word, but that in and of itself, is all I can do.

Let me ask you a question: The Jews of Jesus' time had the Living God in the flesh among them. They had Emmanuel, "God with us" (Matt. 1:23) living with them. Did it do any good? They literally had the Living God, the Alpha and Omega, the Creator, with them, teaching, preaching, working miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead, proof positive beyong a shadow of a doubt, did it do them any good? To some, yes it did. To some, like the Pharesses, it didn't. So what good would it do to have proof positive that God in the flesh, Jesus, did exist?

When it comes to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether it is in the pulpit or out on the street corner, all I can do is present the gospel to them. It is up to the Holy Spirit and His ministry on the earth, to do the rest. Wasn't it Paul who said:

"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." -1 Cor. 3:6

Jesus said to those who seen and yet did not believe:

"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." -John 14:11

If they will not believe in the words of God, the Bible, or though the working of the Holy Spirit, how will they believe with proof? That is just my line of thinking.

God Bless

Till all are one.