What evidence do we as Christians have that Jesus is real?

[BNR32FAN]

Is there any ?

Many eye witness testimonies.

 

[RDKirk]

I think he means outside of the Bible.

The OP said "as Christians," therefore post #6 is the correct answer.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Is there any ?

Secular writings that prove Jesus and the biblical account.


The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived--and that he performed miracles! Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119). If they document his death, then he had to have been born.

It needs to be understood that some of the writings were hostile to Christianity, but still documented the historical fact of Jesus.

JOSEPHUS-Jewish Historian

Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in italics were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, which means he had to have been born.

TACITUS-Gentile Historian

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Annals 15 -44

” Mischievous Superstition”.
Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus’ followers.

A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible. He wrote his history of Rome covering the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, that's 14-96 AD. He used earlier works by historians cross checking them with each other. He sought to verify his facts, something unusual in the writing of the time. He clearly has bias as he hated Domitian and wasn't a great fan of Tiberius, but this would have no bearing on mentions of Christ.


Suetonius-Gentile Historian

Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv).

Phlegon-Gentile Historian

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21

"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...” Origen Against Celsus

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32).
References

There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.

So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born?

Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth:
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989.

hope this helps !!!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1 John 3:24 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
The one who keeps God's commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

Is there any ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Book Evidence That Demands A Verdict may have over 500 evidences.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

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.

The object of study in theology must be carefully stated. It is God as known in the faith of the worshiping Christian community. This study seeks to know an investigatable reality and thus is not merely speculation. For there actually exists in history a community of persons who hold steadfastly to faith in God. Yet since God is not an object, it is inexact to assert that God is directly, flatly, or empirically viewable as an object of theology. God does not, for our convenience, become a direct object of scientific investigation, since God by definition is not finite and thus not subject to the measurements required by empirical sciences (Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius' Second Book; Augustine, CG 10.13; Tho. Aq., ST 1 Q1).

Classic Christianity

 

[jamesbond007]

You mean he doesn't reside in your heart?

ETA: I think people here gave some good evidence for Jesus, but also if you read the things he says and does give him great credibility. Even if you leave out the supernatural, just his words give you reason to pause and think.

 

[mac777]

Is there any ?

Yes...
Thru sincere prayer.
Then you will know for yourself and nobody shall be able to take from you the testimony of Jesus of Nazerath.

 

[Jaxxi]

Is there any ?

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?

 

[tampasteve]

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?

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.

 

[Jaxxi]

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.

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.

 

[tampasteve]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[Jaxxi]

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.

 

[Clare73]

Is there any ?

It's called the Holy Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are sons of God (Rom 8:16).

 

[RDKirk]

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.

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.

 

[Jaxxi]

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.

Jesus was so much more than an Emperor and yes He is a King. A future King but that will be seen soon enough.

 

[tampasteve]

But what they want is proof " outside" of the Bible.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bingo.

 

[J_B_]

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 "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.

 

[tampasteve]

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.

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.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

For the lack of any other starting point I don't see how it could be argued that Jesus didn't exist. How does one explain Paul's conversion or the Apostles actions and motives? Paul in particular is a problem because of his education and actual presence in Jerusalem where Jesus was. Was he in on the scheme as well?

The simple and best answer is that Jesus existed and started a ministry.