Evidence On The Existence Of Jesus

[reyb]

[indent]The subject of all faith, belief and controversies of Christianity and even other religion like Islam is Jesus himself. As some sayings of story- teller, the coming of Jesus is best story ever told in the history of humanity, may I ask, is there really a solid evidence of Jesus’ existence besides the Holy Scripture?

We know that the Church holds so many relics, archives, and other things. Is there really a ‘proof’ that there is a man, named Jesus, who is Son of Mary, born in Jerusalem more or less two thousand years ago?[/indent]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Note: some of this response sounds like I'm taking it a bit personal, but I'm not...it's more than I'm holding a dialogue over the matter in my own mind and answering my own objections.

There is as much proof that Jesus existed as there is that, say, Julius Caesar existed. He is cited in the writings of secular historians (Josephus and Tacitus, I believe, although someone else may provide the exact citations), as well as in religious records, both those well-established (inspired Scripture) and those texts which are dubious (apocrypha). It seems that if He had not truly ever existed, someone would have claimed that earlier on, when it would have been easy to prove, but instead everyone, even those opposed to Him, seems to acknowledge that He did exist as an historical man, though some doubted that He existed as a divine man. Likewise, Julius Caesar is acknowledged to have existed by multiple sources, those for him and those against him. More impressive in both cases, however, is that these historical men established institutions: one an empire and another a Church which would eventually overshadow that same empire. There is no good reason to doubt that a man such as Julius Caesar could begin an empire (although he himself was a dictator and never an emperor), but there is no good reason to believe that an empire, or a Church which grew to be bigger than an empire, could have begun from nothing, inspired only by rumor or perhaps a well-orchestrated hoax by very committed attention-seekers, so committed that they were all willing to die for their hoax. So there is the historical record, the religious record (which at least must be acknowledged insomuch as they state when such-and-such a person was thought to exist), the presence of a highly organized establishment still in existence (despite all odds, mind you), and, last but not least, there is the witness of the martyrs. We believe that Julius Caesar existed because we are told so, but no one has ever died to tell us that he existed. Shouldn't we believe all the more those who are martyred for professing Jesus' existence? I think that's entirely reasonable.

Anyway, the other thing is this: Judaism and Christianity are both historical religions. We believe in incarnation, that God is with His people, even to the point of becoming man (the Old Testament explicitly prophesies the Incarnation, and the New Testament explicitly proclaims it). If it seems odd that Christianity could make such a claim that God became an historical man, which is, I believe, where most objections of this nature come from, just remember that it was not Christianity that came up with it. The idea was prophesied hundreds of years before ("He shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace"). Jesus is not just an idea: He is the fulfillment of the entirety of Hebrew history. The Old Testament is not at all mythological: it has no true heroes except for God, it tells how all are sinners, and it speaks frankly about the coming of the God-man, the Messiah. It's all very historical, and we likewise have every accepted historical proof to back up our claim that Jesus existed.

Perhaps someone else will be able to give you a more satisfying answer.

God bless,

Raphael