I’m genuinely not trying to be a dick here, but citing the Bible as proof of the existence of Jesus is kind of like citing a comic as proof of the existence of Batman. No non-Christian is going to accept that evidence.
I’m not advocating for @Flax at all here, but I think it’s generally accepted that someone called Jesus (there were a LOT of people named Jesus back in the day) did exist and was something of a teacher.
Hate to break it to you, but that’s not historically honest.
“The Bible” is actually just a library of records gathered by various people which testify God. If there was another record/first-hand account about Jesus, it would be in the Bible. So not really. It’s more like trying to use records of Rome to prove that events happened in Rome, like the assassination of Julius Caesar. Or observations about other historical events to prove that event.
So essentially, these are all separate records, the Bible is just a compilation (except for Luke and Acts, they were originally one record, which I have amended my original comment to show)
The circular reasoning argument you are thinking about is about using the Bible to prove the Bible (eg, saying the Bible says it’s true, therefore it is). I’m not using the Bible to try and prove itself, I’m using the Bible to try and prove Jesus. You claimed there are no written records, yet that’s exactly what the Bible is. You can’t just dismiss it because a few hundred years later, Christians decided to canonise it as one text.
And even then, you can in a way, through textual criticism and supplementary historical evidence, prove things about a text (such as criterion of embarrassment, preservation, other details from the authors) relating to it’s legitimacy.
The texts of the New Testament have been one of the most spread and reproduced documents from the Roman empire period, nevermind the first century
Most historical events don’t have the documentation made about Jesus. They all popped up at the same time saying the same thing yet from different perspectives. Then there’s archaeological evidence carrying on about Christianity and a church existing, all from the first century. Something big must have happened, typically things like that don’t happen.
Lastly, not all of the texts I mentioned were biblical. The others were from other historians which didn’t have enough detail to be included in the Bible. The thing is, if they were more detailed, they would have most likely been included in the Bible, making your standard quite the tautology
It’s kind of like someone saying “use studies from academics showing the legitimacy and arguing in favour of the Bible- by the way, you cannot cite Christian Apologists” when by definition, a Christian apologist is someone who argues in favour of Christianity. If they were to argue in favour of Christianity, they’ll be a Christian apologist. It’ll be a tautology. Like how any detailed contemporary account of Jesus by someone close to Him would have most likely been included in the Bible.
Historical fact where?
There is absolutely no evidence of his existence anywhere. No writing about his existence. Nothing.
That’s just flat out wrong.
Antiquities of the Jews - Flavius Josephus Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a, 107b, Sotah 47a)
Annals – Tacitus
Lives of the Caesars – Suetonius
Letters (Book 10, Letter 96) – Pliny the Younger
Letter of Mara bar Serapion
The True Word – Celsus (Referenced in Origen’s Contra Celsum)
The Passing of Peregrinus – Lucian of Samosata
Gospel According to Matthew
Gospel According to Mark
Gospel and Acts of the Apostles According to Luke
Gospel According to John
Epistle to the Romans
First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle to the Galatians
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Philippians
Epistle to the Colossians
First Epistle to the Thessalonians
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
First Epistle to Timothy
Second Epistle to Timothy
Epistle to Titus
Epistle to Philemon
Epistle to the Hebrews
Epistle of James
First Epistle of Peter
Second Epistle of Peter
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John
Epistle of Jude
I’m genuinely not trying to be a dick here, but citing the Bible as proof of the existence of Jesus is kind of like citing a comic as proof of the existence of Batman. No non-Christian is going to accept that evidence.
I’m not advocating for @Flax at all here, but I think it’s generally accepted that someone called Jesus (there were a LOT of people named Jesus back in the day) did exist and was something of a teacher.
Son of god though?.. no
Hate to break it to you, but that’s not historically honest.
“The Bible” is actually just a library of records gathered by various people which testify God. If there was another record/first-hand account about Jesus, it would be in the Bible. So not really. It’s more like trying to use records of Rome to prove that events happened in Rome, like the assassination of Julius Caesar. Or observations about other historical events to prove that event.
So essentially, these are all separate records, the Bible is just a compilation (except for Luke and Acts, they were originally one record, which I have amended my original comment to show)
The circular reasoning argument you are thinking about is about using the Bible to prove the Bible (eg, saying the Bible says it’s true, therefore it is). I’m not using the Bible to try and prove itself, I’m using the Bible to try and prove Jesus. You claimed there are no written records, yet that’s exactly what the Bible is. You can’t just dismiss it because a few hundred years later, Christians decided to canonise it as one text.
And even then, you can in a way, through textual criticism and supplementary historical evidence, prove things about a text (such as criterion of embarrassment, preservation, other details from the authors) relating to it’s legitimacy.
The texts of the New Testament have been one of the most spread and reproduced documents from the Roman empire period, nevermind the first century
Most historical events don’t have the documentation made about Jesus. They all popped up at the same time saying the same thing yet from different perspectives. Then there’s archaeological evidence carrying on about Christianity and a church existing, all from the first century. Something big must have happened, typically things like that don’t happen.
Lastly, not all of the texts I mentioned were biblical. The others were from other historians which didn’t have enough detail to be included in the Bible. The thing is, if they were more detailed, they would have most likely been included in the Bible, making your standard quite the tautology
It’s kind of like someone saying “use studies from academics showing the legitimacy and arguing in favour of the Bible- by the way, you cannot cite Christian Apologists” when by definition, a Christian apologist is someone who argues in favour of Christianity. If they were to argue in favour of Christianity, they’ll be a Christian apologist. It’ll be a tautology. Like how any detailed contemporary account of Jesus by someone close to Him would have most likely been included in the Bible.