Evidence for God from Science

is there any evidence of Jesus besides the bible and other religions.

WannaLearn wrote:is there any evidence of Jesus besides the bible and other religions.

Read The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.

Yes! There are historians and historic figures that make reference to Jesus, Christianity, and the resurrection.

I think it's also important to note that the Bible wasn't always the Bible. The gospels are a collection of separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus and His life, that were grouped together with the other letters of the NT because of their acceptance throughout the ancient world.

Two easy reads that review the Biblical and non-biblical evidence are "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller and "Cold Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace.

There is also a book referenced in Cold Case Christianity that the author says testifies to the non-biblical ancient sources that corroborate Jesus' existence. It is "The Evidence for Jesus" by R.T. France.

WannaLearn wrote:is there any evidence of Jesus besides the bible and other religions.

Even the likes of Bart Ehrman make it clear that it is silly to deny ( as some do) the historical person of Jesus.
I quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-eh ... 49544.html

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

That is the claim made by a small but growing cadre of (published ) writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists. This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead.

Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds -- thousands? -- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

The view, however, founders on its own premises. The reality -- sad or salutary -- is that Jesus was real. And that is the subject of my new book, "Did Jesus Exist?"

It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.

It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.

The question is not whether sources are biased but whether biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that.

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you -- has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

Bart Ehrman is the author of 'Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth,' now available from HarperOne.

It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line.

There's a HUGE difference between APPARENT discrepancies and ACTUAL ones. If anyone wants an excellent source on these, I suggest they get "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Dr. Gleason Archer (http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Bibl ... roduct_top)

The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

HUH?!!! Do explain! So the words of Jesus in Scripture were the mere creative inventions from the minds of men?

Bart Ehrman is the author of 'Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth,' now available from HarperOne.

Yep, Bart believes Jesus existed. He says he used to be a Christian but that he lost his faith over uncertainties about discontinuities he perceived in the New Testament manuscripts. And so never forget that he has an unbeliever's agenda.

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, one of the world's leading ancient Greek scholars and expert of textual criticism, says that Wallace "tries to create strong doubt as to what the original text said, using more innuendo than substance." Wallace describes Ehrman as "a very small minority of textual critics in what he's saying" (about the Bible documents supposed errors and purported deliberate corruption). Highly respected New Testament scholar Gordon Fee says that "Ehrman too often turns mere possibility into probability, and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for (textual) corruption exist."

I think the evidence for Jesus being a real historical figure is pretty apparent and easily accessible all over the place. Even the vast majority of non-believers will accept that as a fact. Very, very few people that I have ever met (and I have met plenty of non-believers) actually think Jesus was entirely made up.

The only real questions are related to the nature of Jesus. That is, was he divine and resurrected and such, and is there a historical argument to be made? He was obviously an influential individual, but are there non-Christian sources and evidences to support divinity? That's the real hangup here.

Philip wrote:

It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line.

There's a HUGE difference between APPARENT discrepancies and ACTUAL ones. If anyone wants an excellent source on these, I suggest they get "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Dr. Gleason Archer (http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Bibl ... roduct_top)

The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

HUH?!!! Do explain! So the words of Jesus in Scripture were the mere creative inventions from the minds of men?

Bart Ehrman is the author of 'Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth,' now available from HarperOne.

Yep, Bart believes Jesus existed. He says he used to be a Christian but that he lost his faith over uncertainties about discontinuities he perceived in the New Testament manuscripts. And so never forget that he has an unbeliever's agenda.

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, one of the world's leading ancient Greek scholars and expert of textual criticism, says that Wallace "tries to create strong doubt as to what the original text said, using more innuendo than substance." Wallace describes Ehrman as "a very small minority of textual critics in what he's saying" (about the Bible documents supposed errors and purported deliberate corruption). Highly respected New Testament scholar Gordon Fee says that "Ehrman too often turns mere possibility into probability, and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for (textual) corruption exist."

Those weren't my views, I linked and pasted the article.
Bart believes that Christian invented the "crucified messiah" thing because, in his view, the messianic prophecies don't state that.
Of course that is dependent on how they are interpreted as some would argue that the "suffering servant" of Isaiah can be viewed implying a crucified messiah.
It is important to understand though that even IF the early Christians started the view of a crucified messiah that doesn't mean they were wrong, it may just mean that it was the correct/new revelation given to them by the HS.

In regards to Bart's views about the bible discrepancies, I suggest reading the book he co-authoured with his former mentor Bruce Metzger:
The New Testament, its transmission, corruption and restoration.

Ivellious wrote:Are there non-Christian sources and evidences to support divinity? That's the real hangup here.

Yes, there are.

Jac3510 wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Are there non-Christian sources and evidences to support divinity? That's the real hangup here.

Yes, there are.

thanks and what may some of them be?

Ivellious wrote:Are there non-Christian sources and evidences to support divinity? That's the real hangup here.


Yes, there are.

Yes, there ARE several sources that corroborate Jesus' EXISTENCE, that He was crucified, etc. But since when has a non-christian source put up evidence for His DIVINITY? Perhaps one might make the case that non-christian sources have said things that CIRCUMSTANTIALLY/Historically fit well with what Scripture teaches about Jesus and His ministry and Who it reveals Him to be.

[quote="Ivellious"
The only real questions are related to the nature of Jesus. That is, was he divine and resurrected and such, and is there a historical argument to be made? He was obviously an influential individual, but are there non-Christian sources and evidences to support divinity? That's the real hangup here.[/quote]

There is a historical argument for his resurrection, yes.
Eyewitness accounts as per the Gospels and Paul's letters and Acts and as for non-christian sources there are some BUT they simply stated that his followers believed He resurrected.
Now, to support His divinity?
That depends on what you mean by that.
Non-christian sources accused Christians of worshiping Christ like a God, that he performed god-like acts.

WannaLearn wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Are there non-Christian sources and evidences to support divinity? That's the real hangup here.

Yes, there are.

thanks and what may some of them be?

Philip wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Are there non-Christian sources and evidences to support divinity? That's the real hangup here.


Yes, there are.

Yes, there ARE several sources that corroborate Jesus' EXISTENCE, that He was crucified, etc. But since when has a non-christian source put up evidence for His DIVINITY? Perhaps one might make the case that non-christian sources have said things that CIRCUMSTANTIALLY/Historically fit well with what Scripture teaches about Jesus and His ministry and Who it reveals Him to be.

Philip is moving in the right direction. I would strongly encourage to ask the historical question (and I cannot emphasize historical enough): where did the belief in Jesus' divinity come from?

So let's take a widely quoted source, only I'll add part of the the context often left out, which I think is especially helpful here:

• Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
  
  They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.

You can read the full text of the letter here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

So this was written somewhere around 110 A.D. Pliney says that some had given up their faith twenty-five years before. That means that we have, at the absolute latest, people worshipping Christ as God in 85 A.D. But, unless we are to believe that some of these people became Christians and then immediately abandoned their faith in the same year, it's very easy to say that this is a good witness that we have the belief in the divinity of Jesus in the early 80s, again, at the latest, and very likely earlier than that. This is also important as Pliny talks about how widespread this issue was--it wasn't just limited to his area. And any historian will tell you that the more widespread a belief, the earlier its origins. So we are on very firm historical grounds from this one source alone to put belief in the divinity of Christ well within the living memory of those who actually knew Him, both friend and foe, and that within Jerusalem itself.

So this raises the question: where did these people get the idea that Jesus actually is God? They didn't see Jesus Himself. So they were taught it by someone, but 50 years is not enough time for legendary development to account for the belief. Moreover, we know that Paul especially wrote against a variety of very early Christian heresies. If Jesus was not God and this belief was so widespread right during the time he was ministering (for if people are affirming it in 80AD they are obviously teaching it much earlier than that--the 60s at the latest, it would seem), and if Paul did not believe it, then he would have said as much. Of course, his letters say just the opposite and affirm that very belief, which is precisely what we expect from the historical record.

The point here is that the only way to get to the idea that people by 80 AD were affirming the divinity of Jesus is to affirm that the people who knew Jesus--the earliest Christians--were themselves affirming it. But this pushes the doctrine of Jesus' divinty back into the 40s and 50s, and in THAT case, the disciples themselves become involved.

At this point, we have a serious problem. We either have to argue massive conspiracy theories (the disicples knew Jesus was not God but intentionally conspired to invent this entire lie, or bigger, even the disciples did not exist and the Roman government concocted the ENTIRE notion) or we have come up with an explanation as to why the first disciples believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I would contend that the only historical explanation for this belief is that Jesus actually is God. That is, Jesus Himself convinced them as much. His miracles and resurrection had proven that to them.

Now, this is very, very brief, and I have left a lot of supportive details out. This is also pretty much based on a single source, but it illustratse the type of thinking. We know from secular history that the disciples believed that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. How the heck do we explain that belief? It sounds like such a simple question, but start trying to answer it without appealing to the actual divinity of Christ, and you will have major problems. You either have to deny the belief itself (which cannot be done historically) or appeal to massive conspiracy (which is not responsible history and probably says more about you than the evidence).

Jac3510 wrote:Now, this is very, very brief, and I have left a lot of supportive details out. This is also pretty much based on a single source, but it illustratse the type of thinking. We know from secular history that the disciples believed that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. How the heck do we explain that belief? It sounds like such a simple question, but start trying to answer it without appealing to the actual divinity of Christ, and you will have major problems. You either have to deny the belief itself (which cannot be done historically) or appeal to massive conspiracy (which is not responsible history and probably says more about you than the evidence).

The only other possibility is if Jesus had deceived his followers into believing he was God. But that has a host of other problems starting with the argument that he did not, in fact, die on the cross (for them to subsequently see and interact with him).

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Now, this is very, very brief, and I have left a lot of supportive details out. This is also pretty much based on a single source, but it illustratse the type of thinking. We know from secular history that the disciples believed that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. How the heck do we explain that belief? It sounds like such a simple question, but start trying to answer it without appealing to the actual divinity of Christ, and you will have major problems. You either have to deny the belief itself (which cannot be done historically) or appeal to massive conspiracy (which is not responsible history and probably says more about you than the evidence).

The only other possibility is if Jesus had deceived his followers into believing he was God. But that has a host of other problems starting with the argument that he did not, in fact, die on the cross (for them to subsequently see and interact with him).

Actually, that's a good point and further illustrates the problem. I think we can create a chart of sorts here based on the question: "Where did belief in Jesus' divinity come from?" Possible answers:

1. Jesus Himself: He truly taught it, and thus Jesus is God; else He falsely taught it, and thus He was either self-deluded or a liar;
2. The disciples/Jesus' first followers: They truly taught it, and thus Jesus is God; else they falsely taught it and were thus self-deluded or were liars;
3. Legendary development: No one explicitly taught the divinity of God until people incorrectly created the belief, thus, neither Jesus nor the disciples believed that He was God

That seems to exhaust all the logical possibilities. I've left off intentional mass deception (i.e., the Roman gov't invented Jesus). Regardless, it seems the one who rejects Jesus' divinity has to place themselves in one of these categories, historically speaking. Either Jesus' divinity is a legend, knowingly and falsely promoted by His disciples, unknowingly and falsely promoted by His followers, or knowingly and falsely promoted by Jesus Himself or unknowingly and falsely promoted by Jesus Himself. But all of these possibilities are historically absurd. So both by process of elimination plus following the obvious implications of the evidence as it stands, the rational person asserts and accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I don't have any trouble with the claim that Jesus existed, genuinely believed that he was divine and had people around him who agreed with him. I suppose I'm just sitting on the fence, I can allow for the divinity & existence of Jesus, that both Jesus and the disciples had a genuine belief in the claims being made but I can't quite make the leap from there to the idea that all claims being made are accurate. I can't really shake the feeling that Jesus and his followers weren't quite right making sweeping theological claims of exclusivity. That a really remarkable chap had an experience of the divine and with those around him interpreted it within the context of theology & religion available is about as far as I can go.

Or from another angle, if Bodhidharma really did come back from the dead wearing only one shoe it doesn't validate the absolute truth of his theological leanings for me either, fascinating and tempting as they are.