Would A Court of Law Affirm the Historical Jesus?
There is a fellow on the Internet who has been promoting the idea that no court of law would affirm the existence of Jesus Christ based on the available evidence. I refuse to debate him on this issue as it is such a silly claim. Would a legal court affirm the existence of Jesus? No they would not. But neither would they affirm the existence of Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus or Constantine the Great. Why? Because legal courts do not go around affirming the existence of historical figures. That is not what they do.
The question of how courts would deal with the historical evidence is completely irrelevant. The question is: what would professional historians do with the evidence. I don’t mean just conservative Christians or zealous atheist historians but historians across a wide range of religious and philosophical positions. And how would the historians respond? Professional historians, almost unanimously, accept the historicity of Jesus Christ, just as they do for Alexander, Augustus and Constantine. We need to keep this discussion focused and keep it as a historical question and not a legal question.
To Stephan J Bedard
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, used the court of law scenario (in his famous book titled: Testimony of the Evangelists) to try to prove the gospels are true
…so Stephan J Bedard; why accuse my of silliness when I use the same basic court standards to show how the gospels and the entire NT would be 100% refused/deemed worthless as evidence for anything concerning the on-paper NT Jesus character
Why accuse me of silliness when cold case detective Christian-superstar-in-the-making J Warner uses court scenarios all the time to try to prove that the NT Jesus is real (in fact, I invite you and anyone else to go to J Warner’s website, pleasecovinceme.com, and you’ll see endless court scenarios in blogs, audio, & video)…so is J Warner equally silly?
Let’s be even handed Stephan J Bedard
Moving along…
Now let me answer you concerning “the existence of Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus or Constantine the Great”
…those men are counted as mere men of history (and all miracle accounts surrounding them are deemed as fiction!!!) and if you want to paint the NT Jesus likewise as a mere man of history who merely got mythologized years later I have no argument with you thus no debate with you…
…buuutttttt if you want to go on record claiming (as you do Stephen J Bedard) that the gospels are true in their portrayal of the NT Jesus being a real live superhero, a man with super human powers, a dynamic & prolific miracle worker of shocking proportions then you have a debate on your hands with me and others like me because surely that Jesus, the gospel Jesus, is a fictional character from ancient times and my SUPER 7 list (aka the UNDEFEATABLE 7) emphatically shows that through commonsense…
So lets do a friendly debate my friend, your method vs. my method—“is the NT Jesus real or fiction”…sounds like a fun debate for both of us since we are both respectful to one another and since have much to say on the subject…your audience would love it/it’s a hot topic…lets go for it!!!
Like I’ve said:
I’m an up and coming internet skeptic who has recently been a FEATURED GUEST on
…Greg Koukl’s STR RADIO SHOW (Nov 11, 2011/still a very popular show where I debated cold case detective super Christian J Warner and his attorney friend Al)
…BACKPACK RADIO (July 15, 22012/one of the most popular shows of 2012/Brett Strong vs. Christian apologist Vocab)
…REDEMPTION RADIO (June 2012/3rd most popular show in their entire history/ Brett Strong vs. Christian apologist Jeff Durbin)
I also have recently dialogued with Dr Paul Copan, Mary Jo Sharp, Todd Friel and Sean McDowell.
My newest easy to read pamphlet book is on my blog as a $3.99 e-book titled: “Jesus—the ‘flying’ superhero of the New Testament—is fiction”
Subjects that I’m well versed in:
…the New Testament documents are unreliable in countless ways
…the New Testament Jesus is a fictional character
…the Christian god does not exist (disclosure: though I am open to an ID)
…we are not divine beings but rather we are animals (the human species of animals)
Brett Strong
My blog is:
jesusisahoax.blogspot.com
Have a great day and Happy New Years
Since J. Warner Wallace has shared this post, I think he knows I am not calling him silly. I am currently reading his new book Cold-Case Christianity. He uses his police experience to express the nature of evidence and to help us understand how to sift through details. However, he does not argue that Christianity is true because it has been demonstrated so by police, lawyers or judges.
The truth is that existence of Jesus is determined within a historical context and not a legal context. J Warner Wallace would agree with this. I heard you speak with him on STR and I was shocked at your lack of understanding of history. I encourage you to contact some history professors at major universities and ask them if they agree with you that the evidence for Jesus is much weaker than that of other ancient historical figures. Do this homework and get back to me with what they say.
Hi Stephan J Badard
Fair enough Stephan J Bedard, let me for a moment step out of the courtroom and step into the PhD ancient historian’s “shoes” to show you and your follower that no matter how you look at it—the gospel Jesus doesn’t exist in reality (4 BCE to 30 AD), only in anonymous/3rd person (unsigned/undated/origin unknown) writings written 40 to 70 years later…come see
Contemporary evidence for Caesar vs. the NT Jesus
Personally written texts…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Writings by friends about him written during his lifetime…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Writings by enemies about him written during his lifetime…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Sculptures/artwork of him created during his lifetime…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Artifact confirming his life…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Artifacts confirming his death…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Known day of death…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Known day or even known year or decade of birth…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Known last name…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Caesar—9 Jesus—0
You see my friend, even “within a historical context” as you say, the gospel Jesus (the storybook miracle working who did over 50,000 very public miracles in the gospels alone) does not exist in reality…just in oral tradition and anonymous/3rd person (unsigned/undated/origin unknown) writings 40 to 70 years later
You see my friend, my understanding of ancient history study is spot on…so I’m shocked you would say I lacked “understanding of history”…again, just read the Caesar vs. Jesus contemporary PhD ancient history understanding…all PhD ancient historians WORLDWIDE would 100% concur with me/Brett Strong… Caesar—9…Jesus—0
Brett Strong…the internet skeptic that has Christian apologists nervous
PS: …would love to debate you (or anyone you can think of) on Skype, radio, call in guest or podcast…we just need to find an interesting topic the public would love to hear…anyways, you seem like an awesome guy Stephan—full of love for your Jesus and all of mankind…have a great day!
So you would say that is reasonable for there to be a similar artifact footprint between one of the greatest generals and the dictator of the Roman empire and a poor Jewish teacher in Galilee/Judea? As for history PhDs agreeing with you 100%, I really would encourage you to contact some history professors at major universities and see if they 100% agree with you that Jesus did not exist.
Stephan J Bedard says “So you would say that is reasonable for there to be a similar artifact footprint between one of the greatest generals and the dictator of the Roman empire and a poor Jewish teacher in Galilee/Judea?”
Brett Strong replies:
1st of all Stephan, I would like to point out to all that your premise here is obviously wrong
…because the NT does not present Jesus as some lowly peasant but rather the NT presents Jesus emphatically as god of the universe in the flesh (the great I am), a gathering of great multitudes from across the Middle East (20,000 here another 15,000 there, again and again and again overflowing throughout the gospels), masses screaming out his name as they laid down palm leaves and their garments as he triumphantly entered the great metropolitan Jerusalem, a miracle worker of unfathomable magnitudes, the Big Bang creator in the flesh, doing so much amazing feats in 1 to 3 years (in a 200 mile radius) that an entire world filled with books couldn’t contain his works…
You see Stephan J Bedard how your poor Jewish teacher premise is utterly false or definitely/severely dummied down… I’m sure your readers can…
Side note: if the NT presented Jesus as some lowly peasant and that’s it, surely I wouldn’t be writing on your blog and surely you wouldn’t waste your energies on such a character…correct/lets ne honest here my friend
Moving along
Stephan J Bedard says “As for history PhDs agreeing with you 100%, I really would encourage you to contact some history professors at major universities and see if they 100% agree with you that Jesus did not exist.”
Brett Strong replies:
1st of all, I must point out that you just changed the subject…the original question you asked me was this:
“I encourage you to contact some history professors at major universities and ask them if they agree with you that the evidence for Jesus is much weaker than that of other ancient historical figures. Do this homework and get back to me with what they say”
My deft reply was this:
Contemporary evidence (that all PhD ancient historians Christian and non-Christians] would 100% agree with) for Caesar vs. the NT Jesus
Personally written texts…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Writings by friends about him written during his lifetime…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Writings by enemies about him written during his lifetime…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Sculptures/artwork of him created during his lifetime…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Artifact confirming his life…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Artifacts confirming his death…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Known day of death…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Known day or even known year or decade of birth…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Known last name…Caesar/Yes…Jesus-No
Caesar—9 Jesus—0
You see my friend, even “within a historical context” as you say, the gospel Jesus (the storybook miracle working who did over 50,000 very public miracles in the gospels alone) does not exist in reality…just in oral tradition and anonymous/3rd person (unsigned/undated/origin unknown) writings 40 to 70 years later
You see my friend, my understanding of ancient history study is spot on…
…so now you switched it to this: ask PhD ancient historians if Jesus existed at all
Well hello! Of course almost all scholars believe that Jesus existed as a mere man…and as I said to you numerous times and to all others I have no argument or debate with that assumption that the NT Jesus was a mere man at least…very plausible for there were more than a dozen Jewish Messiahs that came and went (preached aloud, gathered followers and disciples, then got crucified of the cross by the Romans) during the 1st century
Heck, if tiny madman Charles Manson (deemed Messiah by followers) obtained loyal followers who murdered people at Charles Manson’s whim, and if David Karesh got intelligent people to give there wives and young daughters to have sex with him and go to their fiery death by his side, and Jeff Warrens (convicted of having sex with minors) still to this day (while he’s in prison, likely for life) has over 10,000 die hard followers, and Jim Jones could get almost a 1,000 to commit suicide or be vulnerable to be killed in the jungles of Africa, and if Jose’ Meranda has over a million followers to this day—then surely a lowly mere man Jew in the 1st century named Jesus of Nazareth (again, a mere man) could have existed, gathered a following, got crucified, and the rest, well you know easy it is to start false rumors and have people believe them as utter truth without one once of legitimate evidence …happens all the time today so why not 2,00 years ago with no TV, radio, internet, news reporters, phones, etc …
Brett Strong …the internet skeptic that has Christian apologists nervous
Note: I’ve spent years, on a hobby level, searching for commonsense weak points in PhD Christian apologists teachings…and yes, I’ve found a few—starting with the gospels are utterly unreliable (no court would except it as evidence) when it comes to the NT Jesus, etc, etc, etc
So lets debate Stephan J Bedard…like the gospels are utterly unreliable as evidence material, the apostle Paul was a madman, we humans are not divine but rather we humans are mere animals (of the human species), in reality we are no better then ants…etc…thoe are a few topics that should get people interested…
Have a great day SJ D
“I refuse to debate him on this issue as it is such a silly claim.” That’s called appeal to ridicule. Outside of your predilections, what good reason do you have? I would hope that you aren’t dismissive of them who challenge the historicity of Jesus. More importantly, I would hope that you aren’t dismissive of them who challenge the existence of your Christ. If my hints haven’t been strong enough hitherto, I’ll say it plainly: I challenge both the historicity of Jesus and the veracity of your Christ. I agree that it isn’t a legal discussion; however, the claim would still hold in a historical discussion. The comparisons you make are false analogies. There are evidences in favor of Alexander the Great, Augustus and Constantine that aren’t in favor of Jesus (i.e. numismatic, archaeological, epigraphical). Are there coins of Jesus? No. Yes, it’s quite unfair to expect that given that he wasn’t an emperor or anything of that nature. Sculptures? Ancient inscriptions? Papyrus’ or any sort of writings that aren’t written generations after the fact? The Gospels are the most problematic sources–if it’s even proper to consider them such. Every other source is problematic (i.e. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny). The historical evidence for Jesus is thin at best and the historical evidence for your Christ is nonexistent. By the way, I would expect more than two empty paragraphs from someone of your stature.
I am dismissive not of questions of historicity of Jesus but of the suggestion it should be determined in a court of law. If all history was held to the same standards of a murder case, beyond any shadow of doubt, we would just have to reject history in general. I am happy to discuss the historicity of Jesus when it is kept in a historical context. If you browse this blog, you will find that I am often responding to such claims.
You suggest that there is not the artifact evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander, Augustus and Constantine. Where are the coins and the statues? As you acknowledge, it is not quite fair since Jesus was not that type of political leader. But I would suggest that even if there were coins and statues, that it would not convince you. After all, there are statues and coins depicting the Greek and Roman gods and we would never suggest that points to historicity.
I start from the point of what would we expect. Assume for a moment that there was a Jewish teacher named Jesus of Nazareth who taught basically what is described in the Gospels, was crucified and whose disciples claimed to have seen him after his death. Imagine those things were true. What would we expect in terms of evidence? I would suggest that there would be some records by his followers and perhaps some minor mention by outside sources. And what do we have? Exactly that. Are the Gospels problematic? I would suggest that they are no more so than any other ancient history or biography. Are they biased? Sure but so are every other ancient (and modern) writing. Do they include supernatural elements? Sure, but so do most other ancient histories and biographies. I am not asking for special treatment for Jesus. I am asking for accepted historical methods to be used and for his sources to be treated as any other historical sources.
Stephan J Bedard says “I am happy to discuss the historicity of Jesus when it is kept in a historical context”
Brett Strong replies:
“History refers to what modern professional historians…THINK may have happened in the past”
—Professor Dale B. Martin/Dale B. Martin is the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale.
“Any item of historical knowledge comes from formulating a HYPOTHESIS to explain the facts. That HYPOTHESIS can be known to be true if it does a better job of explaining the facts compared to rival HYPOTHESIS. Now that’s the way historical knowledge is gained”
—J P Moreland
So the NT Jesus kept in a purely historical context (by PhD’s) is reduced to a mere/to put it in plain Brett Strong English
…“we THINK the man named Jesus of Nazareth lived and did such and such”
… “we HYPOTHESIZE [theorize/guess] that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in some context 2,000 years ago and we HYPOTHESIZE he did such and such”
…”it is our OPINION that the NT Jesus lived as a man some 2,000 years ago”
You see Stephan J Bedard, hiding behind a historical Jesus (with professional terms like “we think” “we hypothesize”) only weakens the Christian Jesus of the gospels…better to just have blind faith that the NT Jesus lived and leave it at that (like the Amish do) than to delve into the PhD historicity of the NT Jesus…don’t believe me…why do you think people like Sean McDowell and Brett Kunkl lament that up to 90% of high school students who go to college lose their faith in Jesus within a few years…because professors expose them to the Historical Jesus which quite different from the church Jesus…
So once again Stephan J Bedard, hiding behind a historical Jesus (with professional terms like “we think” “we hypothesize”) only weakens the Christian Jesus of the gospels—and the up to 90% drop out rate backs it….
Also about coins and statues SJD…they would convince me that a historical (mere man) Jesus of Nazareth did in fact live (so it would take me from the very reasonable/very plausible a mere man Jesus lived, to beyond a reasonable doubt Jesus of Nazareth, a mere man, lived 2,000 years a go)
Moving along
Stephan J Bedard says
“Assume for a moment that there was a Jewish teacher named Jesus of Nazareth who taught basically what is described in the Gospels, was crucified and whose disciples claimed to have seen him after his death. Imagine those things were true. What would we expect in terms of evidence? I would suggest that there would be some records by his followers and perhaps some minor mention by outside sources. And what do we have? Exactly that.”
Brett Strong replies
Speaking as a PhD ancient historian, the vast majority reject 21 out of the 27 books of the NT as being fraudulent (in a number of ways/only 7 or 8 of Paul letters are guessed/hypothesized as authentic)…and the kicker is the majority of scholars flat out reject the idea that Jesus’ so-called disciples wrote the gospels (from which we get 99% of all out Jesus info from)
So from a PhD ancient historian view we have nothing from the hands of hypothesized historical Jesus’ or anything from the hands of his so called followers…all is fraudulent besides 7 or so Paul letters…
….now that’s exactly what I would expect from a myth (the NT superhero Jesus)—a lot of fraudulent anonymous activity going on…
Moving along
Stephan J Bedard says “Are the Gospels problematic? I would suggest that they are no more so than any other ancient history or biography. Are they biased? Sure but so are every other ancient (and modern) writing. Do they include supernatural elements? Sure, but so do most other ancient histories and biographies. I am not asking for special treatment for Jesus. I am asking for accepted historical methods to be used and for his sources to be treated as any other historical sources.”
Bret Strong replies
…my friend, accepted PhD historical methods (laughingly Bart Ehrman virtually and continuously ‘yelled’ this at Mike Licona during their debate) automatically rules out miracle accounts an any ancient account, be it from Josephus to the gospels (Bart yelled theologians do god talk not ancient historians)—so there goes your gospel Jesus up in smoke (being that in almost every other page Jesus is a doing some type of superhero miracle)!
Example: imagine taking out all the miracle accounts in Superman books…what you have is Clark Kent and nothing else…quite boring and not worth talking about…same thing goes with the gospels and the Jesus character in it
BRETT STRONG…the internet skeptic that has Christian apologists nervous/exposing their many dogmas as utterly unreliable, false or unfounded in reality…
“After all, there are statues and coins depicting the Greek and Roman gods and we would never suggest that points to historicity.” Of course we wouldn’t make such a suggestion; it may be the case that one or some of their gods are historical–in the sense that they were men and women of renowned who were then deified by their admirers. Unfortunately, us moderns don’t make an issue of these matters because these figures have been reduced to mythologies, and we’ve accepted that. Greek and Roman mythologies don’t have the clout, so to speak, that Christianity has. Furthermore, adherents of these mythologies aren’t making myriad claims regarding these figures. The historicity issue concerning Jesus has become important because of Christianity’s place in the world–specifically in Western culture. Given the parallels, however, I would remain unconvinced if there were statues and coins of Jesus. But statues and coins of mythological, hagiographical and religious figures aren’t the same as statues and coins of historical figures; historians have made this distinction. If that wasn’t the case, many figures in the former category would be just as historical as figures in the latter category.
“What would we expect in terms of evidence?” More than we have–if one wants to argue that we have a sufficient evidence. The Gospels are embellished hagiographies; therefore, we would need corroborative sources other than the Gospels, and that is where the problem lies. Josephus was once considered the best outside source. Unfortunately, Josephus has been problematic for quite sometime. It had been suggested that the Testimonium Flavianum was partially or even entirely Christian interpolation; more recently, it has been suggested that the mention of “James the Just, the brother of who was called Christ” is an accidental interpolation. That is Richard Carrier’s conclusion in his latest paper in the Journal of Early Christian Studies. His conclusion is strong:
“It is more probable that the phrase, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, the name for whom was James,” originated in an accidental interpolation in the Caesarean library than that it came from Josephus’s hand. Without “who was called Christ,” we have no reference to this passage in Origen at all, and we have no evidence that the phrase was ever in Josephus, as the silence of Luke-Acts, Origen, and every other author, including Hegesippus (whose account shows no knowledge of the events related in AJ 20.200) suggests. Origen does not quote Josephus when he, in three places, uses the phrase “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” because in none of these places does he quote or refer to other Josephan material (be it a distinctive construction like “the name for whom was James,” or content particular to AJ 20.200). Rather, he uses a story clearly found only in the Christian author Hegesippus, who also relates a story unknown to Luke and, therefore, probably a second-century invention, as its internal absurdities further suggest. Origen never claims that his material originated from the AJ, and Eusebius could not find it anywhere in Josephus’s writings either, so he simply quoted Origen, but passed it off as a Josephan quotation. Eusebius is the first to notice any mention of Christ in AJ 20.200; unlike Origen, he is the first to quote it; he is the first to declare it a reference to the same James. It seems highly likely, then, that τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (“who was called Christ”) is an accidental scribal interpolation or innocent emendation, and never appeared in the original text of Josephus.”1
He also concludes that the passage was (highly) likely speaking of Jesus ben Damneus and his brother James. Ananus ordered that James be stoned to death; Ananus was soon replaced by Jesus ben Damneus—perhaps a punishment for killing an innocent man. Josephus discusses this in the same narrative a few lines after purportedly mentioning “James the Just” who was “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” Therefore, it is highly probable that he originally spoke of Jesus ben Damneus and his brother James. This is a well-supported conclusion—especially when considering that the death by stoning of “James the Just” is not corroborated anywhere else. Hegesippus wrote a myth concerning the stoning of James; however, this myth is markedly different. In this myth, James the Just is thrown from the roof of a temple and then stoned; however, that doesn’t result in his death. He dies when he is struck in the head with a staff. Also, there is no mention of Ananus, and that is perhaps the key difference.2*
Josephus also mentions John the Baptist, but the historicity of John and his baptisms doesn’t imply that John baptized Jesus. Historical figures are often incorporated into myths (i.e. Darius I in the book of Daniel; Pharaoh, though we don’t know which one, in the book of Exodus). Ultimately, Josephus leaves us with nothing reliable. Of course, there are other outside sources that are often mentioned by Christians, but those are also problematic–unreliable or irrelevant. I can discuss those if you would like.
Ultimately, I can see why you’re dismissive of such claims; the historicity of Jesus isn’t a legal issue and any such statement should be ignored. That is precisely why you should be focused on the actual discussion rather than allowing yourself to be distracted by irrelevant claims. In this discussion, there are some pretty serious claims being made–“Jesus never existed” arguably the most serious. There are disinterested scholars contributing to these studies and I find that they should be considered above and beyond the usual evangelical apologists who are quite populous in this area. Not only are they populous; they are also interested, biased and looking to justify their predilections. In my experience, they can’t be trusted; I’ve looked into Craig, Licona, Habermas, Witherington III, etc.; I’ve read some of their material, listened to their debates and listened to their interviews or lectures on the matter. They’re usually quite dishonest; furthermore, they ignore stronger arguments and they ignore condemning evidence. They don’t conclude that the Testimonium contains interpolations, however much or little; they conclude that it is wholly authentic despite plenty of good evidence to the contrary. Habermas, for instance, exhausted a considerable amount of attention on the Swoon theory3; that is one of the weaker theories put forth by proponents of any theory that isn’t the Messiah or Son of God theory; also, it is, as Habermas alluded to, an early 19th century theory. Why would he do that? It’s either that he ignores stronger arguments (i.e. the body was stolen; followers of Jesus hallucinated when seeing a resurrected Jesus; the resurrection is mythologized and not historical) or he’s looking to mislead the audience; in other words, he wants to lead his brethren into thinking that arguments like the Swoon theory are the best being offered. Evangelical apologists are abusing their majority, and I don’t think it’s fair.
*I’ve included the Hegesippus passage and its citation below.
1 Richard Carrier. “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (2012): 489-514. Project MUSE. Web. 29 Dec. 2012. .
2 Now some persons belonging to the seven [Jewish] sects existing among the people, which have been before described by me in the Commentaries, asked James: “What is the door of Jesus? And he replied that he was the Savior. In consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of one to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James. So, when many even of the ruling class believed, there was a commotion among the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who said, “A little more, and we shall have all the people looking for Jesus as the Christ.”
They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said, “We entreat you, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all who have come here for the day of the Passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to you; since we, as well as all the people, bear you testimony that you are just, and show partiality to none. Therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to you. Take your stand, then, upon the summit of the Temple, that from that elevated spot you may be clearly seen, and your words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the Passover, all the tribes have congregated here, and some of the Gentiles also.”
The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the Temple, and cried aloud to him, and said, “O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people are in error, and follow Jesus the crucified, do tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified.” And he answered with a loud voice, “Why ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He Himself sits in heaven, at the right hand of the great power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven.”
And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, “Hosanna to the son of David,” then 30. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.3–18 (SC 31:86–90; trans. NPNF2 1:207–8, modified; my emphasis). again the Pharisees and scribes said to one another, “We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him.” And they cried aloud, and said, “Oh! Oh! The just man himself is in error.” Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: “Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings.” So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another, “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said, “I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, to whom testimony is born by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying, “Stop! What are you doing!? The just man is praying for us.” But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.
And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.3–18 (SC 31:86–90; trans. NPNF2 1:207–8, modified; my emphasis).
3 http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm
New religious movements (NRMs) are common in history, from ancient times to the present day. Early Christianity is an example of an NRM. Studying NRMs, we observe the follow principle: when an NRM claims to be founded by an actual physical human being in the recent past, in most cases that actual physical human being really existed. NRMs often invent stories about their founders, but rarely do they invent the founders themselves. Just one example – Scientology has made up all kinds of stories about L. Ron Hubbard, but they didn’t make up L. Ron Hubbard himself. Applying this principle to Christianity, it is more likely than not that Jesus existed. The early Christians may well have made up some stories about Jesus, but it is rather unlikely that they made up Jesus himself.
If the early Christians had claimed that Jesus had lived centuries before them; if they were vague about the actual historical period in which he lived – that would be evidence to support the idea he was mythical. But in fact, they claim he existed in the relatively recent past (a few decades ago), and they identified a particular time period (within say a decade) in which they claim he flourished. These two facts suggest that, while Jesus might be a focus of myths, he himself is unlikely to be a myth.
I have to agree with Brett Strong and not Stephen Behard in the debate above,there is not one iota,not one ounce of reliable proof that the 4 gospel N.T.Jesus ever exsisted as a flesh and blood earth walking person.What I learned to do when writing apologetics and supposed biblical scholars about a historical Jesus was to say to them it is not just any Jesus I want you to prove to me because there were many Jesus’es (people named Jesus)in the first century,the Jesus I want you to prove is the miracle worker,crucified and resurrected from the dead Jesus.
None of these apologetics and biblical scholars can do that and soon stop corresponding,most make an excuse or two then stop corresponding.Even Philo who lived all the way through Jesus supposed time and who wrote extensively about the Jewish religion and happenings in Galilee right during the time of Jesus knows nothing of a miracle worker,crucified and resurrected from the dead Jesus.Seneca who tracked and wrote about earthquakes and sun eclipses knows nothing about the supposed earthquake and sun darkening that supposedly happened at the crucifixtion.Much is written about Herod but history knows nothing about the Slaughter of the Innocents,Josephus wrote about many of Herod’s atrocities but he knows nothing about the killing of infants.The supposed resurrection of dead saints rising from their graves and wandering around in the streets of Jerusalem is nowhere in history.The prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled is a lie also including the virgin birth,if you read those supposed prophecies in the O.T.it’s easy to see they were never Messiah prophecies to begin with and most were never any kind of prophecy.The 4 gospel writers pulled lines and verses out of context with surrounding verses and made them seem prophecies fulfilled.
Archaeologists have dug in the Nazareth area for over 100 years and honest archaeologists have proved the town of Nazareth did not exist in the first century.It is a town that had it’s beginning in the last half of the second century.Without the town of Nazareth in the first century there could have been no Jesus of Nazareth in the first century.That also makes the 4 gospels not even written in the first century,they are second century writings.There are other proofs of that.Apologetics and biased Christian scholars need to stop lying.The fact is all you have for belief in a historical Jesus is faith,blind faith.
In Real Truth,
Jay Osborne
It’s been several days and you have not posted my last email nor refuted it or the one above.Were you afraid of the last one and so you flagged it?Remember 1 Pet.3:15.
Jay Osborne
I really do not need to respond. I have given the evidence for the historical Jesus many times on this blog. You can either accept it or reject it. Your choice. As for Nazareth, dig a little deeper. There is now evidence of a 1st century Nazareth.
I think you need to dig a little deeper on Nazareth,for years Catholic supposed archaeoligists claimed artifacts proved Nazareth existed in the first century then honest archaeoligists came along and found they were post dating and pre dating the very same artifacts.The house supposedly found from the first century turned out to be incorrect.All the claims of Nazareth posted on apologetic sites have all been proved false.To this date Nazareth has been proved to have not existed in the first century.The claimed Nazareth area was a graveyard Jews to not build a residence where there were graves.I read more of your claims that are nothing but falsehoods on your site.I suggest you do better open minded research.
Jay
Copy-Paste;
Facts
•No Nazareth anywhere near the 1st century:
…archaeological excavations at present-day Nazareth — …carried out by Franciscan monks and priests… — have failed to show the remains of a single building credibly datable to the first century B.C.E. or the first century C.E. The oldest buildings found seem to date from the last half of the third century, and there is no information to indicate what the inhabitants of those buildings called their village.
Before the second or third century C.E. — going back to the Middle Bronze Age — the site now occupied by Nazareth was a necropolis, a city of the dead. [Link]
Other places mentioned in the New Testament that did not exist at the time Jesus was said to have lived
•About the alleged Roman Census during Quirinius in Luke:
Herod died in the year 4 BCE. So Jesus could hardly have been born both in the reign of Herod and at the time of the Census of Quirinius in 6-7 CE [Link]
Quirinius’ census was of Judaea, not Galilee, and Herod never ordered a slaughter of infants [Link]
From Jay>>As I said do not believe hardly anything from Christian apologetic sites,there are honest modern archaeologists who all state no Nazareth existed in the first century.Your 4 gospels were not written in the first century either.
Jay