Jesus- Part 1- Existence

Mr. Jesus. He's got many aliases- Isa, Yeshua, Iesous, Christ, Saviour, Immanuel, but they're all ultimately the same guy. Many of us do not take into account sometimes the effect He's had on society. First, there are those that were immediate- He changed His disciples into people who died for their faith; He shook the authorities so much that they executed a simple (to those around Him anyway) Nazarene peasant; and He founded a religion that was to change the first four AD centuries. Then there are those effects that are more long lasting- He founded a religion that shaped the entire western world and the course of history itself; His teachings (and many would argue He Himself) have changed and dominated billions of people's lives; His teachings have caused major changes in all aspects of life, from ordinary morals to medicine and the Equal Rights movement; and He's influenced millions of world leaders to make decisions that continually change our lives today. Just look at Rev. Martin Luther King- without the influence of Jesus Christ, without the morals that were instilled in Him as a result of His Christian beliefs, American would be so many steps back in achieving equal rights for those of a different race. There are far many more influences other than this, but I also appreciate and acknowledge that Christianity has done some bad stuff in the past. However, I ask you with all sincerity to look at such events and look at what Christ taught. Are they one and the same? I look forward to hearing your answer.

But His influence isn't the purpose of this topic; well actually it is in a sense. In the past Century (NONE before that may I add) there have been some sceptic scholars (with obviously huge egos to assume that they know better than millions of historians) that have asserted that this influential person never even existed. In essence, He is a lie. He didn't exist. It's all legend, and the continuing influence and dynamic qualities that His teachings possess are mere coincidence. These people (relatively uneducated for their field more often than enough) are denying 1900 years of history, both recorded and non-recorded. But, since this is an apologetics newsletter, it is my duty to ask 'are these claims worth the paper they are written on?' The conclusion I have come to, is (surprise surprise) 'no'. If you ever come across those who deny Christ's existence, or if indeed you yourself deny it, put into consideration these two points.

1) The secular and religious historians testify to His existence.
This is something that is both cherished and disputed in religious circles. The majority of believers and modern historians alike claim these are reliable, but there still some sceptics who claim that they are easily dismissible. However, this is about showing you the evidence rather than discussing its reliability. If you want to look at that go to the URL's provided below. Now then, to the point. I will now list the several historians (in order of reliability), and provide quotes regarding what they said. Note that there are other historians who mention Jesus, but it's best to keep to the main bunch, no?

Tacitus- "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus...suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Josephus- "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day" (NOTE- there is a huge amount of debate over this guy. If you look, he is being very nice about Jesus and Christianity. It is likely that the 3/4th Century Church has added portions of this text, but nonetheless we can be sure that this guy mentioned Christ. If you want to see why, follow the URL on Josephus given below).

Pliny- "They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust"

Lucian- "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account"

Suetonius- "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome".

One other thing to note is the sceptic claim that there are many historians who do not mention Jesus, which is 'very suspicious'. Whilst it is true that there are many who do not mention Him, there are good reasons for why they don't - a) In the first and beginning of the second century, Jesus was just a rebel whom the authorities thought was dead and forgotten. He was a peasant from Galilee. He was nothing more to them, so why should distinguished historians talk about Him? After all, His impact wasn't properly felt until the 2nd Century. b) The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and other similar catastrophes, destroyed many works. Very few documents exist today, due to either destruction or decay. So these historians may have mentioned Jesus, but we wouldn't know.

2) The Bible manuscripts are reliable and in far greater number than any other ancient document.
There are 5000 New Testament manuscripts out there. Now for those who don't know, that's a HUGE amount. It increases the reliability of the Gospels due to the sheer number of them and the way in which they're all the same. No other ancient document has this many manuscripts, for example, copies of Pliny's work number to 2 (!), copies of Aristotle's works number to 49, and the number for Caesar's work is just 10! If you want to see more, go to http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm . To add onto this, the NT manuscripts are 99.5% textually pure, and by this I mean that the content of the original manuscripts and the modern ones are 99.5% similar! This is amazing stuff, if you think about it, considering that 2000 years have passed. Plus, Biblical accounts, people and places are backed up by external evidence, from Thallus describing the eclipse at Christ's death, to Archaeological findings of St.Paul's home and various other things. All this gives strong support for not only the credibility of the Gospels but also of Jesus' existence.

Now, as I stated before, some people assert that the historians listed in number (1) are unreliable sources. This appears to be both a cop out and an act of moving the religious goal posts (or 'Holy' Posts if you will...sorry). Nonetheless, it is worth assessing these if you have doubts. I refer you to these sites for the responses to the claims-

Tacitus- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

Josephus- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html

Pliny- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_PL.html

Lucian- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_LUC.html

Suetonius- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_ST.html


I hope this has cleared some stuff up about Jesus' Existence!