Historical Jesus

I'm not trying to be a creep here, but is there any historical proof of Jesus the Christ walking the earth ? I have a Catholic friend that says there is plenty of historical proof of Jesus. What is it ?

Originally posted by buckky
I'm not trying to be a creep here, but is there any historical proof of Jesus the Christ walking the earth ? I have a Catholic friend that says there is plenty of historical proof of Jesus. What is it ?

Historical writings. Read the books by Flavius Josephus.

Originally posted by buckky
I'm not trying to be a creep here, but is there any historical proof of Jesus the Christ walking the earth ? I have a Catholic friend that says there is plenty of historical proof of Jesus. What is it ?

You are asking about, as you say, "Jesus the Christ" -- not Jesus the man who was apparently named Yashayah (that's one spelling) who was a preacher during the Roman occupation of Palestine.

So are you asking for historical proof that Jesus, the Son of God, who died and was resurrected to save mankind, and all that goes with it, walked the earth? That would require historical proof for all that.

Presumably "historical proof" would rely on evidence gathered and analyzed by methodologies meeting the professional standards of historians and archeologists.

Your friend might want to check out the history and archeology departments of institutions like Notre Dame University or other Catholic institutions to see where they stand on the historical evidence for Jesus the Christ.

Originally posted by buckky
I'm not trying to be a creep here, but is there any historical proof of Jesus the Christ walking the earth ? I have a Catholic friend that says there is plenty of historical proof of Jesus. What is it ?

Well, Scripture is really the primary evidence. Other sources like Josephus and Tacitus are far less convincing and most scholars have impugned the veracity of references to Jesus in these secular histories. The New Testament, while quite probably not a trustworthy source of history, at least has an early date and a far distribution, pointing to an early church community centering around Jesus.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, Scripture is really the primary evidence. Other sources like Josephus and Tacitus are far less convincing and most scholars have impugned the veracity of references to Jesus in these secular histories. The New Testament, while quite probably not a trustworthy source of history, at least has an early date and a far distribution, pointing to an early church community centering around Jesus.

It seems odd that basically nothing concrete is out there. Is there any historical record of Mohammad or the Buddha ?

Originally posted by buckky
It seems odd that basically nothing concrete is out there. Is there any historical record of Mohammad or the Buddha ?

I think there is quite a lot out there. The problem is that we are dealing with a period of time which did not have the same archivist tendencies we have.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think there is quite a lot out there. The problem is that we are dealing with a period of time which did not have the same archivist tendencies we have.

Where is the proof that is out there. Who is hiding it ?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think there is quite a lot out there. The problem is that we are dealing with a period of time which did not have the same archivist tendencies we have.

I don't think that is the only problem with the historical proof of Jesus the Christ.

Originally posted by buckky
Where is the proof that is out there. Who is hiding it ?

I am satisfied that Jesus existed because we know that much was being written about him very early in the 1st century in a variety of locations. All of the New Testament comes from 50-100CE. Along with that, there are other non-biblical records, such as the Didache. Early Patristic writing shows that Christians existed in Italy, Greece, Israel, Turkey and even Africa by the time of the early 2nd century. I think that the early date and wide distribution of Christians suggests that Jesus really did exist and was executed around 30CE. I don't think an elaborate lie would spread so rapidly. I think skeptics could dismiss the NT as fantastical exaggeration but I don't think it is very plausible to deny that some real historical Jesus existed.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am satisfied that Jesus existed because we know that much was being written about him very early in the 1st century in a variety of locations. All of the New Testament comes from 50-100CE. Along with that, there are other non-biblical records, such as the Didache. Early Patristic writing shows that Christians existed in Italy, Greece, Israel, Turkey and e ...[text shortened]... ration but I don't think it is very plausible to deny that some real historical Jesus existed.

Why would this situation be any different than that of the Mormons with Joseph Smith? They claim it happened, and it took off, and now there is big religion based on the supernatural story. All these fantastic storys about things that can't be verified but you are suppose to accept it as Truth because of a tradition being passed on.

Originally posted by buckky
Why would this situation be any different than that of the Mormons with Joseph Smith? They claim it happened, and it took off, and now there is big religion based on the supernatural story. All these fantastic storys about things that can't be verified but you are suppose to accept it as Truth because of a tradition being passed on.

I don't understand. You do not believe that Joseph Smith existed?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am satisfied that Jesus existed because we know that much was being written about him very early in the 1st century in a variety of locations. All of the New Testament comes from 50-100CE. Along with that, there are other non-biblical records, such as the Didache. Early Patristic writing shows that Christians existed in Italy, Greece, Israel, Turkey and e ...[text shortened]... ration but I don't think it is very plausible to deny that some real historical Jesus existed.

It is quite plausible that a person named Yashayah (one spelling) existed, who was a remarkable preacher during the Roman occupation of Palestine, and was executed for, well, being a troublemaker who upset the balancing act that was the Roman-Jewish arrangement for the governance of Palestine.

Originally posted by JS357
It is quite plausible that a person named Yashayah (one spelling) existed, who was a remarkable preacher during the Roman occupation of Palestine, and was executed for, well, being a troublemaker who upset the balancing act that was the Roman-Jewish arrangement for the governance of Palestine.

He certainly did that and He was also a king.

Originally posted by buckky
Why would this situation be any different than that of the Mormons with Joseph Smith? They claim it happened, and it took off, and now there is big religion based on the supernatural story. All these fantastic storys about things that can't be verified but you are suppose to accept it as Truth because of a tradition being passed on.

Who is Joseph smith? Apparently not nearly as famous as Jesus.
I have heard of Jim Jones.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Historical writings. Read the books by Flavius Josephus.

Can you provide references? I have never heard of any historical non-Christian writers who said anything more than 'there are Christians who believe ....'