Skip to comments.Jesus Christ the Man: Does the Physical Evidence Hold Up?
Posted on 04/17/2011 8:16:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Jesus Christ may be the most famous man who ever lived. But how do we know he did?
Most theological historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth. They draw that conclusion from textual evidence in the Bible, however, rather than from the odd assortment of relics parading as physical evidence in churches all over Europe.
That's because, from fragments of text written on bits of parchment to overly abundant chips of wood allegedly salvaged from his crucifix, none of the physical evidence of Jesus' life and death hold up to scientific scrutiny. [Who Was Jesus, the Man?]
In a documentary called "The Nails of the Cross," set to air April 20 on the History Channel, filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici tells the story of two nails allegedly discovered in a 2,000-year-old tomb in Jerusalem. He presents circumstantial evidence that seems to suggest the rusty relics once nailed Jesus to the cross.
The tomb in which the nails were found is believed by some to be that of the Jewish high priest Caiaphas, who presides over the trial of Jesus in the New Testament.
"If you look at the whole story — historical, textual, archaeological — they all seem to point at these two nails being involved in a crucifixion," Jacobovici says in the film. "And since Caiaphas is only associated with Jesus' crucifixion, you put two and two together and they seem to imply that these are the nails."
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
As another poster said, and I am shamelessly stealing, “Either you have faith or you don’t.”
If people aren't going to choose to believe based on firsthand eyewitnessing of Jesus personally, then none of them will be convinced based on even credible reports of relics being found.
Who needs “physical evidence” when you have FAITH?
If the Bible says He did, that is plenty good enough for me.
Much better to live your life as though there is a God and be wrong, than to live your life as though there is no God and be wrong..........
No need for an of this. Just read the brilliant analysis provided by Benedict XVI (sometimes called a theological Einstein) in his Book. Volume II Jesus of Nazareth -Holy Week on the chapter on the Resurrection. The best analysis ever!!!! Nothing more is needed.
There is more evidence of the birth, life, death, burial & resurrection of Jesus than any event in ancient history.
As for the Shroud. I believe it is His.
Here’s my problem with the premises of the writer:
* She drew distinctions between scientific evidence and belief as if evidence requires no belief or assumption or interpretation. The belief of Christians in Jesus life comes from textual evidence in the Bible betraying a bias that textual evidence is less credible than scientific evidence.
* Her headline also implies that evidence must be physical. This rules out logical and textual evidence and eyewitness testimony.
* It also begs questions about whether other beliefs accepted by scientists are based on physical evidence alone.
* But dubious archaeological claims, frauds and forgeries have little to do with the question of whether Jesus really lived. But she gives weight to these.
* She seemed to indicate that non-canonical gospels have equal bearing with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John on the history of Jesus: There are still other Gospels, she said, without naming them.
* She did not mention that the Gospel of Judas was written much later by Gnostics, and that the Gospel of Thomas and others have long been considered spurious by early church fathers who lived closest in time to the writing of those documents. Nor did she explore the church fathers criteria for authenticity, the social dynamics of heretics and cults who might have reasons to write spurious accounts, nor the science of textual analysis, concerned with the authenticity of texts.
* She drew a middle ground on the historicity of Jesus, quoting Marcus Borg, a secular scholar at Oregon State: We do know some things about the historical Jesus less than some Christians think, but more than some skeptics think. That judgment, though, rests on what documents one takes as credible. Borg did not question the fact that Jesus lived, but from the textual evidence, presented a synopsis of Jesus life SANITIZED of the miraculous.
Articles like the above often appear when Good Friday looms.
During this time, Secularists will pick and choose the kinds of evidence they like, draw their conclusions based on that selected evidence, filter it through their materialistic biases, and proclaim to the world that science has shown the resurrection to be a myth, congratulating themselves that they have been neutral scientists and not biased dogmatists like the believers.
Faith is faith - agreed. However, I don’t think that the thinking should be entirely left out. And while not “physical evidence” - there is the account made by Josephus, a Jewish historian born about the time Christ was crucified.
What an idiotic argument. By that standard, we have no evidence Julius Caesar or Caligula ever lived.
The existence of Christ is about as well documented as can be expected. Whether he was indeed the Son of God is a question that science or history cannot answer, of course.
True God and True Man
It doesn’t matter what the scientiists believe.
Live by your faith.
Thank you! People who put even one cent of faith into man-made relics are often lost when it is discovered that those relics were phony.
Matthew 7:7-12 - Ask, seek, knock... and when Jesus answers... whoa.
Yep - I’ve read the eye witness accounts.
IIRC, to this date, no remnants of the second temple which could be called a part of a wall or even a walkway have been proved.
Laughable. They “debunk” claims that aren’t made, ignore the feature of the Dead Sea Scrolls which proves Jesus was the Christ (their version of the Old Testament is the same that we have, and therefore proves that dozens of detailed predictions about Him were made hundreds of years of years before his birth) and as far as the Shroud of Turin goes, take as undisputed fact things that are in dispute. Then, to close the article up, they take the Histry/Discovery Channel approach and find the most liberal Bible scholar they can get ahold of to say “Jesus was what I think he was, not what the Bible and contemporary documents say he was. Neener, neener, neener.”
Lord, please just come back and end the stupidity.
You have to admit Jesus Christ’s birth is way better documented than Obama’s.
our current messiah doesn’t have a birth certificate either.
Yes, and whether she realized it or not, she was ignoring this (or ignorant of it) precisely because the textual evidence is ironclad. Tens of thousands of contemporary manuscripts, agreeing in amazing harmony, and first circulated at a time when, if their claims were false, there would be hundreds of eyewitnesses ready to debunk them.
Saying He didn't exist, or een that we don't have clear evidence He rose from the dead, is like saying that I'm not sure a battle was ever fought at Lexington, Massachusetts.