> Ok, I find this direction interesting. Is there any proof of the existence > of Jesus other than the Bible?
Heaven's yes. Gary has mentioned Josephus (Jewish, and opposed to Jesus' claims), but there are numerous other historical contemporaries who referred to and wrote about Jesus - eg: the Roman writer Pliney. In terms of the quantity of existing historical documents (or fragments of them) dating back to the late first and into the second century AD that we actually have in our possession AND that refer to Jesus directly, is over 20,000. That's compared to around 100 or so that document the existence of Julius Caesar, and yet no one seems to doubt his existence. ;-) As I said, there is so much of Christianity that is built on straight history, I find it remarkable how so many people can ignore it! I could post at extreme length from highly regarded scholarly sources (Christian and non-Christian), but I suspect most would be bored to tears. > But isn't using the Bible to prove the validity of Jesus' arguments like > using political pamphlet to prove the validity of that party's views? I understand what you are saying here, but no, it's not. If we approach the Bible in the most helpful way, we should first see it as a collection of highly connected historical documents, written by a wide range of people, over a long period of time. Whether we choose to believe what those documents teach or not (ie: Christianity) should not stop us considering their historical validity and what they can teach us about the places, times and people that they speak about. Consider how we approach an understanding of recent historical events. Here in Australia, the last person who fought in World War One died a couple of months ago, and there is almost no else here who lived in that time still alive. So how do we know about the history (ie: the facts, the truth) about events of WW1? There's a number of ways, but here are some: * We talk to people related to those who were there. * We can view some photos taken at events. * We read 'contemporary sources' that are public - eg newspapers, army reports and other documents. * We read the documents written by those who were there. Eg: My wife's grandfather was a medic in the trenches at Gallipoli and he wrote an extensive diary detailing his 9 months there, and we have that diary here. And so on. All of those sources will record the events of the time from the authors own perspective. But when we read them all together, we can gain a profound insight into that time and the events that take place. A simple example: An official army report of the campaign in Gallipoli might tend to paint those events in a more 'favourable' light, in order to sway government support or the like. But if we were to read those reports alongside (for example) the journals and diaries of the men actually in the trenches, you would gain a much more balanced history of that time. The army report would probably have a better 'big picture' of the Gallipoli campaign, but the diaries and journals would give us the 'gritty', personal, eye witness details. That is a very simple example of how we can gain the most accurate picture of a period or sequence in events in history. The New Testament is no different other than its longer ago and the records of a slightly different nature. Over the course of human history, millions of ordinary people have sought to record what happens to them and around them. They didn't see themselves as 'historians', they wrote from their own perspective, but the vast majority had no reason to deliberately twist and warp those records. The New Testament writers were no different, and we should apply (and have done) the same rigorous historical scholarship and tests as we do to any other documents of that era. The N.T. documents are widely regarded by all manner of historians of all religious and non-religious persuasions as the premier historical sources of the day. I could go on (and on), but my point is simple: My relationship with Jesus Christ is built on a solid historical basis. Being an reasonably intelligent, educated person, I wouldn't have it any other way. So before anyone attacks the existence of Jesus or the validity of the evidence for his existence and mission, please, at least do some basic homework: read that evidence - or at least part of it! Otherwise, with respect, you are speaking purely from ignorance and hearsay. Find a good modern, scholarly translation of the Bible and read one of the gospels from start to end. Luke is a good start, but it doesn't really matter which one. If you don't have a good, contemporary translation, read here online: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=1&version=31 Respectfully, ____________________________________ Neil Atwood - Sydney, Australia http://westserve.org - Blog, Christianity, Coffee and Tech Stuff. -----Original Message----- From: Thane Sherrington (S) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 23 December 2005 10:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Hardware List Subject: RE: [H] OT - Intelligent Design dealt harsh blow by NJ Judge At 03:13 AM 23/12/2005, Neil Atwood wrote: >We are dealing with matters of truth here. Either something is true or it >is not. There is discoverable truth about Jesus, because he was a real >historical figure, and therefore we can employ the same approach to >examining him and his claims as we do any historical figure. Ok, I find this direction interesting. Is there any proof of the existance of Jesus other than the Bible? >One thing is very, very clear: Jesus claimed to be the incarnate Son of >God, and any other conclusion as to his nature and role was unacceptable >to him. >So, if you want a discussion about that, we have to start there and use >the best source material available: the Bible. But isn't using the Bible to prove the validity of Jesus' arguments like using political pamphlet to prove the validity of that party's views? T
