No secular evidence for Jesus. What does this imply?

Spectrum

A man that performed miracles including raising the dead has left no secular evidence. But as I write this the question has come to mind of what ancient evidence constitutes verifiable, believable evidence that we can take to the bank?

We have the NT and the apocrypha, ancient texts that tell a story of the early christians. Why is any of this less believable regarding the existence of the central character, Jesus, than the characters of Josephus? How many of Josephus's characters are corroberated in the secular way that is expected of Jesus?

Does Jesus require a higher standard of evidence considering the claims that have been made about him?

Caedes

I don't think Jesus needs more evidence than anyone else, from an atheistic viewpoint I would assume that the miracles are mere chinese whispers and should be discounted straight away since we are obviously never going to see any proof. However If there was an early christian leader called Jesus who was as big a deal as is claimed then I would expect to see some records of him in the roman records. As far as I was aware the roman records are from a later period and nothing was recorded during Jesus supposed lifetime. Personally I think the romans were then as keen as anyone to perpetuate the myth considering their adoption of christianity.

I would imagine that Jesus is simply an amalgam of stories of a number of people from that time.

EAGLE-1

If I were a Roman Governor or other I would nail anyone causing trouble unless I knew for a fact they could walk on water etc.Strange that no one person really knew who he was at the trial if there was one.I mean someone had to kiss him so the Jews could arrest him.They did not know who he was.Just that he ransacked the temple IF he did.

The lesson would be to avoid Israel while being dominated by Rome especially if your the son of God.Making a few sparks fly off of Pilates head during the interview would have been cool.Or making the Jewish High priest sound like the Spice Girls..............

No ones to crucify anyone till I blow this whistle.

Narkissos

Another Galilean troublemaker may well have been missed by contemporary historians.

But, then, the Jesus of the NT is much more than just another Galilean troublemaker...

SixofNine

4 out of 5 historians agree; Jesus was the leading Galilean troublemaker. :-D

Spectrum

A friend just came up with an interesting explanation; Maybe there is no secular evidence because his public life only lasted three years hence the window of opportunity was very small.

Anybody agree

under_believer

"Secular Evidence" is a slippery term. We have a much lower standard of evidence for things that happened thousands of years ago than we have for things that happened 200 years ago. There is better historical evidence (outside of the Bible) for the existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of Alexander the Great--yet nobody doubts Alexander's existence. I'm not promoting belief in Jesus with these statements, just trying to add some perspective.

I suggest you review this Wikipedia article for a fairly balanced discussion of this issue.

lovelylil

spectrum,

thay is a good point. I would like to bring out these points too.

Jesus was really only important to those who were awaiting the Messiah which was the Jewish nation only. Then only a few of them became Christian followers of his and that is why all the records are by early Christians. Think about it - what did Jesus do that would be considered great enough for non-believers to take note of him? We should therefore not be surprised that the only record of him is in the bible.

He came to preach to the nation of Isreal only. During his 3 1/2 year ministry - he for the most part did not even preach to the gentiles. That work did not start until after Jesus Death. so again, he is a person important to believers only, which back then was a very small group of people in relation to the rest of the world. Jesus did not change the world in a political way during his first advent, he did not change human laws for unbelievers, I mean really, what kind of information do you think there would be on record if most people did not even believe he was who he said he was? He was mainly a religious figure only - so why are we surprised that he is only mentioned in religious books?

There are many early historians who do write about Jesus and the information was given by very early sources. It is just that for those who do not believe in the bible or Jesus - no information will be enough. Many of these same sources write about the Apostle Paul as a real person and Peter who is the so called "first Pope" for the Catholics. So, why if THEY believed Christ existed, and they are accepted as real people, would we say Christ did not exist? Were these people and ALL the others who wrote about Jesus under a mass delusion?

Remember there was absolutely no good reason to admit to being a Christian back then. You would be ostracized plus many lost everything for the faith, even their lives. Why would they do this for someone they were not sure existed? Because they had the testimony of upwards of 500 people that is why. Because Christ appeared to his BELIEVERS after he was resurrected.

Also, keep this in mind - in the past there has been lack of secular information to back up beliefs in the existance of other people named in the bible like Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, and then later it was found that they were historical people after all. So lack of "secular" information does not necessarily prove anything.

There are many early christian writings that are not included in what we call our bible today and many of these name Jesus. Again, how many people are under this delusion if Christ is not a real historical person?

Jesus did impact the world for believers and continues to do so for those ones today, even so many years after his death. What other made up person has affected the world like Jesus?

For Christians who are true believers, in Christ's body, united with him by holy spirit, we know he exists because he is evident in our lives on a daily basis.

Tea4Two

Jesus did impact the world for believers and continues to do so for those ones today, even so many years after his death. What other made up person has affected the world like Jesus?

Santa Claus?

lovelylil

Tea,

This is too funny. As I was typing that line, I swear I thought to myself, I hope no one says Santa Claus! Thanks for the laugh, Lilly

No secular evidence for Jesus. What does this imply?

Share this