A Case for Christ

[hierochloe]

Howdy phatmassers! It's been ages since I've been on the phorums. I've missed it. Well, down to business.

I was recently challenged (over drinks naturally) that the [objective] historical evidence in favor of the existence of Jesus is weak to the point that he may have not even existed.

Let me also clarify that this was a purely a statement regarding historical facts on this person's part, which I, naturally, immediately challenged. So I'm now saddled with the task of backing up my claim, that being that there is easily enough evidence to support the case that a man named Jesus really did exist. I have no intentions (at this point ) of demonstrating anything beyond this, issues such as supernatural/divine nature, crucifixion, resurection etc are another discussion entirely. :lol_grin:

Having had some fantastic and enlightening discussions on these boards in the past, I figured this would be one place for certain to tap for some leads on my angle. I could do it from scratch, but it seems a debate that surely has been done to death. So I'm hoping someone can provide me with some sources perhaps, or maybe even their own deductions. My opponent is no dummy tho, so I'll have to present something fairly compelling. Should be easy in this case right? My tentative strategy is to compare the historical facts accepted by today's mainstream historians about Jesus with the equivalent for some other historical figures (Alexander the Great, Socrates, Ramses, Helen of Troy, etc). I mean, this is JESUS we're talking about! It's not Adam or Gilgamesh!

Likewise I welcome any opinions to the contrary, as that will give me an idea of what sort of rebuttal I'm in for at this weekend's happy hour. Nothing like tempering a point beforehand.

Many thanks for your posts! :

[Snarf]

There are several historical references to a Jesus in Palestine to whom were ascribed traits befitting the character in the Gospels. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the Roman court, is far and away the most famous example. I'm sure that our friend Google has more resources at hand than I do, so I'll leave excessive list-making to those actually interested.

My Platonic and Augustinian influences incline me to favor a priori arguments with aesthetic appeals, something seeing a resurgence with weird physics.

If there were no real Jesus, why was the myth so popular in Roman-occupied Judea? Turn-of-the-eon Palestine was seething with desire for a military messiah, a fact that virtually no one contests. A shift in paradigm is exactly what one would expect for the Jewish people after the disasterous revolt of the AD 70s, but the well-documented persecutions under Nero the decade prior indicate that wide-spread contentment with a pacifist Christ was a well-established fact before the fall of the Temple.

Furthermore, the spread of reasonably consistent information and ideology indicates either a firm grounding in reality or the success of the greatest conspiracy in history. Would a conspiracy entailing Christian ideology be plausible at the time? Its target audience was the Jews; Romans didn't readily distinguish Christianity from Old Testament Judaism except as a bizarre sect until it was formally recognized by the state under Constantine. The Christian message to Judaism wasn't one that the Jews would love to swallow. Love your enemies. Pay your taxes. Oh, God loves all people, not just you. Ritualistic consumption of divine flesh and blood might make you more interesting to potential converts, but not in any positive sense. As St Paul discovered in Athens, Christianity as a novel concept would be too weird and in-your-face to be the product of deliberate fabrication.

What one of my religious studies professors called "the image of a teddy bear God" is something that has its Scriptural merits, but in religious dialogue it didn't have any real existence until the 20th Century. If you want to sell something besides the truth, you flatter and bribe. This is what Scientology does, which makes perfectly good sense as a deliberately fabricated "religion". Early Christianity emphatically did NOT do this. The message of the New Testament is that if you do what's right, people will invariably hate you. That you must love those that hate you doesn't add to any appeal. The message of Christ's crucifixion, that someone loved you enough to endure an unhumanly gruesome death, might be considered flattery. Except, to read further into the story beginning with St Stephan and continuing with eleven apostles (to say nothing of extra-Scriptural Christian history), is to infer: you're next.

To say nothing of the historical Jesus' actual divinity, the idea of the historical Jesus as being a social construction fails because it's not a very appealing one.

[OLAM Dad]

What he said.

Also, the Gospels themselves are historical evidence (as are the other books in the NT). Don't discount them.

I believe the best, earliest non-Christian writings are from the historian Josephus.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

The historical fact of Jesus from Nazereth was something completely taken for granted. Nobody dared question it, until the age of enlightenment, when all historically credible documentation would be held to stricter scrutiny.

Doubts over the existence of the man Jesus has more to do with many atheist scholars of that age attempting to discredit their greatest foe, namely Christianity. their motives are of course questionable.

SHALOM

[kamiller42]

This might provide some valuable references for you.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus[/url]

[hierochloe]

Thanks for the replies, folks.

I've only spent a few hours this week (if even that) researching this and I've come to the conlusion that the non-Christian historical record as we know it provides no [i]indisputable[/i] evidence for a real man that would be Jesus. Before I get lit up, I would clarify that certainly it's debatable - it's just not indisputuable (IMO). On top of that it's miniscule compared to what I was expecting. Kinda like the fossil record - it might speak volumes if more than a tiny fraction of it was left. Again, this is in reference to [b]non[/b]-Christian records that support the existence of a man who could be Jesus (as opposed to showing there are people that believe in a man named Jesus). If I got this wrong, then by all means correct me please.

However, when non-Christian evidence is viewed in tandem with early Christian records (written within living memory of Jesus, such as gospels) as well as non-Christian records regarding Christians and their conviction under duress, the case for a man existing to whom Christianity could trace it's beliefs begins to become stronger (IMO). The problem is that skeptics immeditely snipe at the bias of the sources.

If all of the historic record, of questional validity as it may be, is combined with some [i]a priori[/i] logic, then the case gets compelling to me (as an objective, "unfaithful" observer). No logical thinker can deny strong logic, and I think it's in this that the case finds its greatest support. What I'm getting at here is the fact that "the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" , and in fact are thriving all over the world despite significant persecution and what you might consider human nature's "natural resistance" to parts of the faith. [a la Snarf above] : Who's dying for Dionysus or tithing for Osiris these days? Yeah.

Now all that remains for me is to find an analogous historical figure (or a few) that is represented in the records equally (meaning very few to no reliable objective sources) yet for whom there is little or no question/skepticism in accepting this figure's existence. Doesn't even have to be a spiritual or leader figure - just a person most people easily accept existed. I came across a comparison in a book for Alexander the Great, but I found that to be too weak a parallel for my purposes. I guess I don't really need to go this far, but it seems it might add some credibility to my argument. Also, I would love to flank by indirectly uncovering bias in someone who is against bias when it suits their inclination. Whoopsie! This could be tough though. Altho there does seem to be a good few vandals tagging "Frodo lives!" on water towers.....

Thanks again for the posts!

[Snarf]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana[/url]

[franciscan13]

There is of course a book titled "A Case for Christ" i can not remember the author. i've heard its a very good book.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Snarf' post='964518' date='Apr 28 2006, 04:36 PM']
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana[/url]
[/quote]
Mmmm, that could work. However not only does it seem there more "non-biased" evidence for Apollonius having existed to some extent than Jesus through indendent and unrelated sources (at a glance anyways - I could be wrong), any discussion involving [i][b]that[/b][/i] guy could easily lead down a path to an open can of worms that puts me in water way over my head. Someday when I've gone back to school and picked up a double-major advanced degree in history and philosphy....

I'll look into it more and maybe give it a shot. The topic never came up this weekend and I didn't push it so I've got more time. : Thanks.

[mortify]

Peace in Christ,

I'm a bit obsessed with the early Church and this was something i've yearned for. Christ is the foundation of the Church and we must be certain He is real. My faith was rocked at all the nonsense you can find online, infact, its surprising considering there is a consensus among scholars and historians that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. There is a *fringe* of people who deny this, but they are criticized and rely too much on the argument of silence. We have to remember a historian writing at that time would not be necessarily interested in mentioning a Messiah in an outpost like Judea, and so it is incredible that we have so many mentions of Christ from non Christian sources. Certainly a case within itself suggesting something extraordinary about Christ, but anyway, there is an excellent non-Catholic apologetic site which has written some excellent articles on this very topic. I don't necessarily encourage reading other material, some statements on theology seem a bit imperfect, but the writings on the canon and history are excellent. Anyway, here is the site, I encourage you to read the articles:

[url="http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html"]http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html[/url]

[Fidei Defensor]

Get a hold of the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It doesnt deal with the historical aspect alone, but it does a great job of building the whole case about Jesus, including historical things, as well as the reliability of the Bible as a source.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='mortify' post='970038' date='May 3 2006, 04:08 PM']
Peace in Christ,

I'm a bit obsessed with the early Church and this was something i've yearned for. Christ is the foundation of the Church and we must be certain He is real. My faith was rocked at all the nonsense you can find online, infact, its surprising considering there is a consensus among scholars and historians that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. There is a *fringe* of people who deny this, but they are criticized and rely too much on the argument of silence. We have to remember a historian writing at that time would not be necessarily interested in mentioning a Messiah in an outpost like Judea, and so it is incredible that we have so many mentions of Christ from non Christian sources. Certainly a case within itself suggesting something extraordinary about Christ, but anyway, there is an excellent non-Catholic apologetic site which has written some excellent articles on this very topic. I don't necessarily encourage reading other material, some statements on theology seem a bit imperfect, but the writings on the canon and history are excellent. Anyway, here is the site, I encourage you to read the articles:

[url="http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html"]http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html[/url]
[/quote]

The problem I encountered is that the number of neutral sources (being non-Christian) from antiquity mentioning Jesus independently and not as part of an explanation for what a Christian believes can be counted on one hand. Even these are questionable, ie the Josephus work. So one ends up with a well-supported case for extant Christians yet little or nothing beyond that for the man himself, Jesus. And indeed, the fringe who's analyses purport everything from Jesus being a total fabrication all the way to being the rebel character Barrabas in actuality running with a 900-man crew of thugs.

I'll readily conceed that this is not quite what I expected - such was my ignorance. Yes, a bit rocked but thank goodness my conviction is not contingent upon such a neutral verification to prevail. Nor am I in any way willing to discount wholesale all Christian sources so it's all good. So my friend "got me" to a good extent, even though I only countered that there is comparable evidence for Jesus as there is for other personalities of antiquity (like Apollonius ).

Thanks for that source. I'll give it a look.

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='970043' date='May 3 2006, 04:11 PM']
Get a hold of the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It doesnt deal with the historical aspect alone, but it does a great job of building the whole case about Jesus, including historical things, as well as the reliability of the Bible as a source.
[/quote]
Yes, I read reviews on that book among many others but thought this would be a slam-dunk deal not re. Clearly (in my case anyways) it isn't and reading a few books rather than browsing the internet is in order. I'll be sure to check that one out. Thanks.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hierochloe' post='970175' date='May 3 2006, 05:28 PM']
The problem I encountered is that the number of neutral sources (being non-Christian) from antiquity mentioning Jesus independently and not as part of an explanation for what a Christian believes can be counted on one hand. Even these are questionable, ie the Josephus work. So one ends up with a well-supported case for extant Christians yet little or nothing beyond that for the man himself, Jesus. And indeed, the fringe who's analyses purport everything from Jesus being a total fabrication all the way to being the rebel character Barrabas in actuality running with a 900-man crew of thugs.

I'll readily conceed that this is not quite what I expected - such was my ignorance. Yes, a bit rocked but thank goodness my conviction is not contingent upon such a neutral verification to prevail. Nor am I in any way willing to discount wholesale all Christian sources so it's all good. So my friend "got me" to a good extent, even though I only countered that there is comparable evidence for Jesus as there is for other personalities of antiquity (like Apollonius ).

Thanks for that source. I'll give it a look.
Yes, I read reviews on that book among many others but thought this would be a slam-dunk deal not re. Clearly (in my case anyways) it isn't and reading a few books rather than browsing the internet is in order. I'll be sure to check that one out. Thanks.
[/quote]
There is better documentation for the existence of Jesus Christ (written within a short time after His death) than there is for most figures of the ancient world. To be consistent, if one denied that Jesus Christ existed based on lack of historical evidence, he would have to also conclude that most other people in the ancient world never existed.

And if Jesus never even lived as a man, surely in the early years of the Church, the Church's opponents would bring this up. However, no one has denied the existence of a historical figure of Jesus Christ until over 1800 years after His death!
(And even most unbeleivers agree that there was indeed a man Jesus who lived in Galilee during the 1st Century. The argument that Jesus Christ never lived is not an argument, merely an irrational assertion that involves simply throwing out all evidence as being lies.)

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Socrates' post='970190' date='May 3 2006, 05:41 PM']
There is better documentation for the existence of Jesus Christ (written within a short time after His death) than there is for most figures of the ancient world. To be consistent, if one denied that Jesus Christ existed based on lack of historical evidence, he would have to also conclude that most other people in the ancient world never existed.[/quote]
This was my first thought exactly when I was confronted with the issue. However, nearly all of the documentation is by Christians, and therefore open to credibility issues due to bias, or so the skeptic would rightly claim. I also believe there are other characters of antiquity that are readily accepted on this level of documentation, I just need to indentify a few of them to support my rebuttal. Can you think of any off the top of your head? :

[quote name='Socrates' post='970190' date='May 3 2006, 05:41 PM']
And if Jesus never even lived as a man, surely in the early years of the Church, the Church's opponents would bring this up. However, no one has denied the existence of a historical figure of Jesus Christ until over 1800 years after His death![/quote]
This is a strong point, one which I've overlooked somewhat. Although, I think the figure of 1800 years is too long. If I remember correctly, I came across skepticism in the record within 1000 years (if I run across it again I'll be happy to share the source). Nevertheless, his mere existence isn't questioned for quite a long period, which says a lot.

[quote name='Socrates' post='970190' date='May 3 2006, 05:41 PM']
(And even most unbeleivers agree that there was indeed a man Jesus who lived in Galilee during the 1st Century. The argument that Jesus Christ never lived is not an argument, merely an irrational assertion that involves simply throwing out all evidence as being lies.)
[/quote]
Yes, it would seem the only way to swallow that bait is to completely and utterly discount all Christian writings and tradition, which in itself involves quite a leap of faith, pardon the pun.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hierochloe' post='970249' date='May 3 2006, 06:39 PM']
This was my first thought exactly when I was confronted with the issue. However, nearly all of the documentation is by Christians, and therefore open to credibility issues due to bias, or so the skeptic would rightly claim. I also believe there are other characters of antiquity that are readily accepted on this level of documentation, I just need to indentify a few of them to support my rebuttal. Can you think of any off the top of your head? :[/quote]
This "credibility issues due to bias" point is really quite ridiculous. Of course, most of the people who would write about Christ in the early years would be Christians! Jesus would be regarded as important enough to write about by His followers who believed him to be the Christ, the Son of God! Others would regard him merely as a Jewish preacher or dissident (as most non-Christians do today), and of course during His life, Christ would be little known outside Palestine. (The surrounding pagans would have limited interest in what they would regard as the internal affairs of the Jews.)
This argument is really like denying the existence of Julius Caesar because most writing about him comes from the Romans, or something similar.
Christ is mentioned by non-Christian historian Flavius Josephus (1st Century AD) in his [i]Antiquities of the Jews[/i], and [i]The Jewish War[/i].

[quote]This is a strong point, one which I've overlooked somewhat. Although, I think the figure of 1800 years is too long. If I remember correctly, I came across skepticism in the record within 1000 years (if I run across it again I'll be happy to share the source). Nevertheless, his mere existence isn't questioned for quite a long period, which says a lot.[/quote]
Yes, it is a strong point. Modern "rationalist" denials of the existence of Christ go back to a book written in the 19th century. I am unaware of the earlier skepticism you are referring to, but even 1000 years is very long after living memory, and if there was a denial of Christ's existence at this time (early middle ages), it would be unlikely to be based on any "rational" evidence, but would most likely be from some bizarre religious sect or something.
[quote]
Yes, it would seem the only way to swallow that bait is to completely and utterly discount all Christian writings and tradition, which in itself involves quite a leap of faith, pardon the pun.
[/quote]
Yes, this is really just skepticism for its own sake. If one uses their methods, one can pretty much deny the existence of any historical figure from ancient times. The burden of proof is on them. There is much historical documentation supporting the existance of Christ
and none against it. Fot them to have a case, they would have to bring forth ancient documents claiming that Christ did not indeed exist. Since none exist (even from Christianity's enemies), we must conclude that Christ's existence was accepted as fact, and that He did indeed exist.