There is convincing evidence that Jesus was a historical figure who performed miracles and rose from the dead. There is absolutely no evidence that the Jesus of the gospels even existed. He is only mentioned in the New Testament, which was written long after his death by people who did not know him. St. Paul says little that suggests a historical Jesus. He also did not know Jesus. His evidence for Jesus is just his own mystical visions. He said, I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preach is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1: 11-12). The fact that Jesus is not mentioned by any of the many Roman historians of the time, some living in Jerusalem and who wrote voluminously, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jesus described in the gospels is largely of not totally a fictional character. However, secular scholars disagree on whether Jesus is a historical figure. Bart Ehrman thinks he did exist, as an apocalyptic preacher. Robert Price thinks he is not historical. What about Josephus and Tacitus? Both were born after Jesuss supposed crucifixion, so obviously they were not eyewitnesses and wrote long after the fact. Furthermore, the frequently quoted passage from Josephus: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, is now recognized to be a much later forgery. Tacitus and Josephus, at best, were writing about a new death cult called Christianity, which certainly existed by that time. There is just as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as for Socrates. Not true. No one who wrote about Jesus ever knew him as a real, living human being. Three people who wrote about Socrates at the time knew him: Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon.
Posted on: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 01:10:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015