- Aug 11, 2017
- 22,887
- 7,468
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Is there any ?
Many eye witness testimonies.
Upvote
0
Is there any ?
I think he means outside of the Bible.
Secular writings that prove Jesus and the biblical account.Is there any ?
Is there any ?
Jesus is very real to those who are genuinely converted to Christianity. They have the Holy Spirit within them Who has revealed Jesus to them. If Jesus is not real to a person, then they need to look to the state of their soul before God. It is possible to have all the trappings of the Christian religion but not know Jesus as a real Person. This is because they have a religious spirit in them and not the Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago and He never had a sword, carried a weapon, or harmed a soul yet He is STILL conquering the world. That isn't proof enough?Is there any ?
Not from a Historical Perspective. It is a great testimony to us as believers, but that isn't historical. Faith does not need history necessarily, but history can strengthen faith. If we did not need history then there is little reason to toss out writings like the Book of Mormon or the Hindu epics. History adds reliability to our faith, to Christianity.Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago and He never had a sword, carried a weapon, or harmed a soul yet He is STILL conquering the world. That isn't proof enough?
Right but He didn't have a birth certificate of or end up on a census anywhere. How about the fact that the Romans did everything to discredit Jesus and tried to prove Him a fraud and it could not be done. They stamped the grave with the Seal and they opened the tomb after guarding it continually. They could not deny that He was gone! What about the phenomenon of stigmata? That would not exist if Jesus never lived and that phenomenon is documented. The first seven men in the Bible. If you look up the meaning of their names and read them together it prophesies the coming of Christ.Not from a Historical Perspective. It is a great testimony to us as believers, but that isn't historical. Faith does not need history necessarily, but history can strengthen faith. If we did not need history then there is little reason to toss out writings like the Book of Mormon or the Hindu epics. History adds reliability to our faith, to Christianity.
The accounts from non-biblical sources, archaeology that corroborates the Gospels and other parts of scripture are hugely important. If the Gospel writings are able to be shown reliable from a archaeological and otherwise historical perspective (and they are), then that adds a huge amount of credibility to the story of Jesus.
None of that is historically verifiable outside of the Gospels. So again, we have to verify the historicity of other parts of the Gospel accounts to help us piece together the parts that are not currently verified.Right but He didn't have a birth certificate of or end up on a census anywhere. How about the fact that the Romans did everything to discredit Jesus and tried to prove Him a fraud and it could not be done. They stamped the grave with the Seal and they opened the tomb after guarding it continually.
The witness of the soldiers is not verifiable outside of scripture. Stigmata is.....debatable. I personally don't buy into the "miracle" of stigmata. I agree, there is plenty of prophesy that points to the Messiah in the Jewish scriptures, and Jesus fulfills most of those prophesies. Or at least what is written about him fulfills many prophesies, but it is still not "historical" as they cannot be proven. I disagree that Jesus is bouncing off of the pages of the Jewish scriptures. Actually, I feel that believing that cheapens the prophesies that he actually did fulfill. Many prophesies taken by many Christians just were never considered to be messianic prophesies, and that drives some people away.They could not deny that He was gone! What about the phenomenon of stigmata? That would not exist if Jesus never lived and that phenomenon is documented. The first seven men in the Bible. If you look up the meaning of their names and read them together it prophesies the coming of Christ.
But what they want is proof " outside" of the Bible. I am a Christian as well who believes the gospel accounts but what do we have outside of those? That is what I was saying. You can't keep going back to the Bible when they want something more. It looks foolish, like the Bible is all there is to prove His existence when there has got to be more than that.Let me preface everything I am about to say that I am a believer, I believe the Gospel accounts to be accurate and true. I believe in the reality of Jesus as a historical truth and God in flesh, part of the Holy Trinity.
None of that is historically verifiable outside of the Gospels. So again, we have to verify the historicity of other parts of the Gospel accounts to help us piece together the parts that are not currently verified.
The Gospels give a accurate account of 1st century Judea, Samaria, and Galillee. They give a verifiable account of the leaders and players in the area at the time, the geographical and political landscape. They bear witness to the wider Roman world and Jewish customs. The Gospels work in conjunction to tell a full picture of the life of Jesus and that area of the world at that time. Archaeology can help prove many parts of the scriptures, both Old and New testaments. Many things written about are able to be proven to be fact or have proven to be fact over time, excavations, and study.
These facts help to lead us to believe that what cannot be verified about Jesus is also likely true. There is evidence of a person named Jesus at that time from accounts outside of the Gospels. There is also a tradition of other itinerant preachers from the region of Galilee around that time (Honi the Circle Drawer being a prime example).
The witness of the soldiers is not verifiable outside of scripture. Stigmata is.....debatable. I personally don't buy into the "miracle" of stigmata. I agree, there is plenty of prophesy that points to the Messiah in the Jewish scriptures, and Jesus fulfills most of those prophesies. Or at least what is written about him fulfills many prophesies, but it is still not "historical" as they cannot be proven. I disagree that Jesus is bouncing off of the pages of the Jewish scriptures. Actually, I feel that believing that cheapens the prophesies that he actually did fulfill. Many prophesies taken by many Christians just were never considered to be messianic prophesies, and that drives some people away.
But what they want is proof " outside" of the Bible. I am a Christian as well who believes the gospel accounts but what do we have outside of those? That is what I was saying. You can't keep going back to the Bible when they want something more. It looks foolish, like the Bible is all there is to prove His existence when there has got to be more than that.
Jesus was so much more than an Emperor and yes He is a King. A future King but that will be seen soon enough.I would point out that Jesus as a historical figure (even if we ignore all His miracles) is better proven from the kinds of documentation that historians use than most other ancient personages, particularly since He wasn't even an emperor or king. Few other ancient figures have as much documentation as close to their own lives.
Exactly. And that proof exists, when we look for it and examine the scriptures as a whole, not just looking for an actual exact evidence.But what they want is proof " outside" of the Bible.
We actually have quite a lot. Based on accounts close to the source, or from the sources, and based on the verifiable parts that we do have, it all points to a historical reality.I am a Christian as well who believes the gospel accounts but what do we have outside of those? That is what I was saying.
That is why it is up to us as Christians to know the extra material, to point to the evidence we do have and how it all fits together.You can't keep going back to the Bible when they want something more. It looks foolish, like the Bible is all there is to prove His existence when there has got to be more than that.
Bingo.I would point out that Jesus as a historical figure (even if we ignore all His miracles) is better proven from the kinds of documentation that historians use than most other ancient personages, particularly since He wasn't even an emperor or king. Few other ancient figures have as much documentation as close to their own lives.
None of that is historically verifiable outside of the Gospels. So again, we have to verify the historicity of other parts of the Gospel accounts to help us piece together the parts that are not currently verified.
Thanks for taking the time to write that out. I want to say that I largely agree with everything you wrote. I'll take more time on Monday to give a proper reply.The "proof outside the Bible" thing is largely a layman's requirement. The Bible IS a historical document. I used a label from an Anheuser-Busch beer bottle from 1910 for an argument in one history paper and the fiction book Look Homeward Angel for an argument in another paper - historical documents in both cases. There seems to be this idea that historians look at history and make some kind of black & white decision. If a document is proven true, it is history, and if it's not proven true it's not history. History doesn't work that way.
First of all, there's no infallible method for defining which documents are true and which aren't. There is no magic number of facts needed to corroborate a historical document. Historians use documents created by forgers, liars, myth-makers, all manner of people.
The way doctors do medicine is much more complex than what people learn in high school biology. The same is true of scientists, musicians, accountants, lawyers, and ... historians. The way historians do history is much more complex than what people learn in high school history.
So, yes, the commentary historians make on the life of Jesus is based on extra-Biblical sources. And that commentary IS based on what the Bible says. From there you'll get a spectrum of conclusions about Jesus' historicity, from outright disbelief (Richard Carrier) to firm belief (F.F. Bruce) and everything in between. It's a discussion that will continue until Christ calls us home.
With that said, at the moment very few (maybe a handful) of professional historians doubt Jesus' existence. Where the crux of the disbelief comes is in whether Jesus was the Christ, and that is a question history can't answer.
All the stuff about "Jesus didn't exist" comes from tinfoil hat wearing, alien chasing, misguided individuals. One of my favorite websites is by an atheist who goes into great detail to debunk all these people: An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 1 of 2)
He does an excellent job, despite being an unbeliever.
So, with that tirade, let me come to my point:
1) None of this is directed at you personally, @tampasteve . I agree with much of what you said. History can be a great comfort and support to our faith, but it will never prove our faith. I simply used your post as a starting point.
2) Don't play the unbeliever's game. If you agree to prove Jesus' existence using only extra-Biblical evidence, you've lost before you started. They know what you're going to present. You're going to start talking about Josephus, Tacitus, etc. And the unbeliever will be ready to tick off the reasons why none of those sources count - none of those reasons being based in professional historical method.
3) Don't give up the high ground. The Bible IS a historical source. That is not a claim that history has proven every word of it to be true (belief in the truth of the Bible comes from elsewhere) - history never does that for any source. The point is, don't surrender that position.