Jewish Contributions to Christianity, Monotheism and Individualism

[Jonathan Randall]

Well, you'll have to take a look at what I said in its original context. I specifically replied to the comments:

"Consider this: w/out Jewish contributions there would be NO Catholic faith. No Christianity, no true monotheism, no respect for the individual as opposed to the group, etc."

So, to take them one at a time:

1) The two most popular threads of early Christianity --- Marcionism and Manicheism --- emphatically rejected what we would today call Judaism. If either of these threads had gained the official approval of the Roman state under Constantine, then you wouldn't be referencing Judaism at all in regards to the Christian faith.

2) Monotheism has its origins in ancient Egypt, under Akhenaton's worship of Aton. "Judaism", in fact, did not become monotheistic until relatively late, and even then, did so under the influence of Hellenistic culture. Furthermore, there are many monotheistic strands within Hellenistic philosophy (Plato, Hercaclitus, Corpus Hermeticum, and so on). In fact, more than one Gentile critic (such as Celsus) accused the Jewish people of being polytheists at the time.

3) I really don't see the logic of approximating individualism from Judaism. It was a fairly common value system throughout Western civilization.

Also, as a minor note, I would argue against the points of Jesus fulfilling the Messiah role in modern Judaism (his character is more like the Qumranic "Teacher of Righteousness" or a Gnostic Redeemer than the Hebraic Messiah), as well as the point of Jesus being "Jewish". In my opinion, "Jesus Christ" is a mythic composite and, as such, has no real ethnicity.

Laterz.

1. Christianity, and by extension Catholicism, began as a JEWISH faith, so obviously they (the Jews) contributed to its development.

2. I was aware of Egypt's BRIEF flirtation with monotheism under Akhenaton, but I did not write that the early Jews FOUNDED monotheism, rather I implied that they popularized it.

 

[terryl965]

1. Christianity, and by extension Catholicism, began as a JEWISH faith, so obviously they (the Jews) contributed to its development.

OK I have to dis-agree with this even though the Jewish people contributed to christiananity, by that time they where no longer Jewish/

Let me ask a question for those of you who cares, If Jesus was the King of Jews and died a Jew, that make him Jewish by faith, so where did Christiananity come from appartnly not from him so man started there own way of looking at religion like so many other things in life.

I would love to hear your views about my statement in an intekigent way of course.
Terry

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator note:

Thread moved to Philosophy and Spirituality.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Senior Moderator

 

[Jonathan Randall]

OK I have to dis-agree with this even though the Jewish people contributed to christiananity, by that time they where no longer Jewish/

Let me ask a question for those of you who cares, If Jesus was the King of Jews and died a Jew, that make him Jewish by faith, so where did Christiananity come from appartnly not from him so man started there own way of looking at religion like so many other things in life.

I would love to hear your views about my statement in an intekigent way of course.
Terry

Actually, Peter, IIRC, the first head of the Christian Church had to be persuaded by the Apostle Paul to extend Christianity outside of the Jewish communities within the Roman Empire.

As to your second question: personally I consider Judaism and Christianity both sides of the same coin (although I'm neither) - a coin that originated in Ancient Israel.

BTW, thanks for moving it, Shesulsa, as that's where I SHOULD HAVE started it in the first place. LOL.

 

[Cruentus]

I would love to hear your views about my statement in an intekigent way of course.
Terry

Good luck...

 

[kamishinkan]

"Christianity" in it's original teachings was considered another "sect" of Judaism, called Nazrene. They worshipped along side the Pharisee and saducee "sects", among others, in the temple until after Rome destroyed the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. It was not even called "Christianity" until much later (Acts 11:26) and according to most scholars, it was NEVER used by the early church in Jerusalem. Actually, the term Christian was started in Antioch by Latins and was considered a derogatory term.
Much of the pagan overtones of "Christianity" was overlaid by Rome. Rome was a melting pot of all pagan "mystic" religions, and to appease the influx of this new "Christian" religion (2nd-4th centuries) in Rome, the councils melded the pagan worship rites into this new religious system.
Again, in the beginning of the faith, it was Hebraic in ALL of it's ways. Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus) was the Messiah and a Rabbi, and James (Jacob) was the leader of the Messianic Synogouge in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18, Gal 1:19). Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus) would go to the synogouges "as was his custom" and read the Torah (Luke 4:16).
For someone to say that Yeshua did not "fullfill the role of the Messiah in modern Judaism". I would say you are right, but Modern Judaism is a far cry from 1st century temple worship Judaism. From the 2nd century on Judaism has been heavily changed by the Rabbis to conform to the Judaism based on the lack of a temple and to combat the claims of the followers of Rabbi Yeshua.
As far as Monotheism, I never heard that Jewish people make any claim to "inventing" monotheism. I am sure there were other religious monotheists.

 

[heretic888]

Okay, here we go.

In the context in which I framed my original post, it was under the postulation that there would be no Christianity (or, more specifically, Catholicism) without Jewish contributions. I gave examples of how this was not necessarily the case (specifically, Marcionism and Manicheism). In no way was I suggesting that the faith now collectively named "Christianity" was not influenced by Judaism, for it most certainly is. Rather, my answer was more along the lines of a hypothetical "what-if" scenario, rather than being an accurate presentation of current history.

My point being that what we call "Christianity" could have developed without any contributions from Judaism. It may have taken on slightly different surface features than what has been passed on to us today, but the essentials of the faith would be more or less unchanged.

On to the issue of monotheism, it is rather absurd to suggest the Egyptians had a "brief flirtation" with this paradigm. The Corpus Hermeticum comes from Egyptian teachings, after all, and it is filled with quasi-Platonic monism/monotheism. Then, of course, there is Pythagoras, whose philosophy was dependent on what he had learned in Egypt.

Furthermore, it is even more absurd to suggest that the Jewish people in any way "popularized" monotheism. The Jews did not adopt a monotheistic paradigm until relatively late, under the influence of Persian culture during the Babylonian Exile. Prior to that time, the Jews were largely polytheistic, with many of their deity designations --- Yahweh, Elohim, Adonai, El Elyon, and so on --- actually referring to many different tribal gods. The Judaism passed on to us via the Torah and the Old Testament is basically Zoroastrianism with a Semitic coat.

Some form of monotheism, pantheism, or monism was extremely commonplace among the philosophers of the ancient Greco-Roman world. The idea that they were collectively influenced by Judaism (as was suggested by Jewish philosophers at the time, such as Philo) is an extremely discredited theory.

Regarding the issues of "Jesus", "Paul", "Peter", and so on --- all of that is only a problem if you presume these individuals actually existed in history. I make no such assumption. I have come across no compelling evidence to believe they were anything but mythical composites or mystical allegories. "Paul", in particular, seems to have been an invention of Marcion, who based him almost directly on the stories attributed to Orpheus.

The notion that the "paganization" of Christianity came later in its history, under the auspices of Rome, is a Protestant fantasy that does not stand up to critical scrutiny. The Virgin Birth, Transfiguration on the Mount, Water to Wine, Eucharist, Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming are all mythological motifs that have precedent in a number of "pagan" Mystery traditions of the time.

An excellent visual example of the pre-existence of these mythos can be found in photographs of two vases in Freke and Gandy's The Jesus Mysteries, dated to roughly the 5th to 3rd centuries BCE. What we are presented is a depiction of the godman Dionysus, who:
- is tied to a tree or wooden post
- is a young, bearded man wearing what appears to be a crown of thorns and a purple robe
- has a container of wine and loaves of bread before him on a ritualistic altar

Sorry, folks, but it just doesn't add up. Unless, of course, you are predisposed to absurd arguments like 'Diabolical Mimicry', as early patristic sources such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were.

Laterz.

P.S. Judaism probably has its "origins" in ancient Sumer or Babylon. Christianity probably has its "origins" in Egypt, specifically in Alexandria.

 

[kamishinkan]

I agree with you in that "modern Christianity" as practiced today could have been developed without Hebraic contributions. I think that most of the practices of "modern christianity" has direct ties to other religious systems (pagan, mainly pre-dating Christianity). Our differences are based in when the pagan influences were introduced. I have researched this at great length (as I notice you have as well) and have concluded that the paganization of Christianity happened in Rome mainly between the 2nd and 4th centuries. I read that you dis-agree with this train of thought but it is what I have found in studying history.
Again, I AGREE with your hypothesis about Modern Christian/Hebraic contributions. Interesting post.

 

[heretic888]

Kamishinkan, my personal opinion is that there is no real historical evidence that "Christianity" (as such) predates the second century. At least no evidence that cannot be demonstrated to be forgeries of a later date.

However, there does appear to be what you could call proto-Christian traditions prior to the first century, as evidenced in intertestamental texts such as The Books of Enoch and The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach. Entire portions of both of these sources, which predate the first century, were copy-and-pasted into our versions of the New Testament.

Furthermore, I would have to conclude that limiting this purported "paganization" (assuming it actually took place) to Rome is a rather reckless claim. Marcionism alone was spread throughout Hellenistic civilization by the middle of the second century. There is no good reason to limit the so-called pagan "accretions" to Rome when they were so commonplace in other areas of the world.

In fact, the synthesis of Judaism with Hellenistic philosophy and religion was rather normal at the time. The Pharisees, Essenes, Therapeutae, and so on all did this to varying degrees. Philo, who had a powerful influence on the author of the Gospel of John, derived his Logos theology largely from the Judaic Wisdom tradition (Book of Proverbs) and Heraclitus' concept of the Logos.

Laterz.

 

[scottcatchot]

Very interesting thread.

I have some comments I would like to throw in. I diagree that Christianity would have evolved to its current state without influence of the Jewish Faith. One they both worship the same God, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Jehovah. (one God, always one God different names describing and revealing different aspects of God Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah Jireh, etc.) Jesus, Peter, PAul, ETC. preached from the Torah. There beliefs were based on and confirmed by what is written in the Torah. If they did not have the Torah, there beliefs would have been very different. The Jewish faith seperated them from religions around them and was against integrating other religious beliefs.

On wheter Jesus, Peter, Paul were real live people. Do you really believe they are mythical ? just curious. A jewish historian by the name of Josephus makes mention of Jesus in his Antiquities (spelling?) Many of the things written regarding Jesus, etc. was done so when people who witnessed the events, including Jesus's family members (He did have brothers, sisters, Uncles) were still alive any of whom could have pointed out that these were lies. Which the Religious leaders and Romans would have been eager to do.

 

[Ray]

A jewish historian by the name of Josephus makes mention of Jesus in his Antiquities (spelling?)

I am a believer in Jesus Christ. My conclusion of Josephus is the same as some scholars (I'm no scholar, though): that this was an insertion by someone later--it probably wasn't in Josephus's original.

 

[heretic888]

I diagree that Christianity would have evolved to its current state without influence of the Jewish Faith.

You are free to disagree, of course, but you are doing so in spite of history, not because of it.

One they both worship the same God, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Jehovah. (one God, always one God different names describing and revealing different aspects of God Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah Jireh, etc.)

Historically, the two most prevalent and widespread manifestations of pre-Nicene Christianity --- namely, Marcionism and Manicheism --- as well as several lesser schools --- such as the Simonians --- rejected the Jewish god, constrasting the Jealous God with the God of Love. Marcion's Anitheses are a perfect example of this philosophy.

It is perfectly feasible that Christianity could have developed more or less intact sans an overt Jewish influence.

Jesus, Peter, PAul, ETC. preached from the Torah. There beliefs were based on and confirmed by what is written in the Torah.

Actually, the New Testamental authors preached from the Greek Septugaint, not the Hebrew Torah. As I argued on another thread, much of the Septugaint was translated for the deliberate purpose of harmonizing Judaism with Hellenistic philosophy and religion.

Furthermore, if you are following the arguments of the Pauline epistles, then the purpose of Christianity is render the Law irrelevant or unnecessary.

If they did not have the Torah, there beliefs would have been very different. The Jewish faith seperated them from religions around them and was against integrating other religious beliefs.

This is a modern fantasy, perpetuated by self-serving evangelicals who are largely ignorant of the historical underpinnings of their faith.

The Greek Septugaint, intertestamental works such as The Books of Enoch and The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and the Logos theology of philosophers such as Philo of Alexandria (who had a profound influence on the author of the Gospel of John) are all testament to the fact that the Hellenistic Jews readily embraced syncretistic efforts.

On wheter Jesus, Peter, Paul were real live people. Do you really believe they are mythical ? just curious.

Yes.

A jewish historian by the name of Josephus makes mention of Jesus in his Antiquities (spelling?)

This claim is commonly asserted, but falls apart under critical examination.

There is no extant version of Josephus's work that does not predate the mid-500's CE, nearly two centuries after orthodox Christianity gained the sponsorship of the Roman government. It is almost universally accepted that the "Testimonium Flavius" attibuted to Josephus is a late forgery (most likely by the church historian Eusebius).

A passing mention of a "James, brother of Jesus who is called the Christ" also falls apart in that when Origen quotes this work in the mid-200's, it is in a decidedly different form that what has been passed down to us today. This indicates that the mentions of Jesus by Josephus that we have today have in some ways been edited or redacted by later Christian scribes. As such, this leaves him as an unreliable source in "proving" the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Josephus wrote around 100 CE, removing him from the purported events in question by as much as a full lifetime. He quotes no primary sources. This makes him, at best, a secondary source to the subject in question.

Many of the things written regarding Jesus, etc. was done so when people who witnessed the events, including Jesus's family members (He did have brothers, sisters, Uncles) were still alive any of whom could have pointed out that these were lies.

A bold claim, one that is made much more credible if actually supported by actual sources and citations.

Which the Religious leaders and Romans would have been eager to do.

Another modern fantasy, namely that of early Christian persecution.

Available historical records (that are not suspect of Christian forgery) indicate that the Christian movements were of little interest to the Roman authorities of the first and second centuries. At worst, they constituted a minor annoyance, hardly anything they should devote much of their resources to.

In the mid-200's, Origen makes it very clear that the number of Christians that were claimed to have been martyred was "very small in number". They don't seem to have held any special place to the Romans, when compared to other religious groups.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I am a believer in Jesus Christ. My conclusion of Josephus is the same as some scholars (I'm no scholar, though): that this was an insertion by someone later--it probably wasn't in Josephus's original.

Indeed. Most scholars believe the "Testimonium Flavius" to be a creation of Eusebius, a church historian active in the mid-300's.

 

[scottcatchot]

Historically, the two most prevalent and widespread manifestations of pre-Nicene Christianity --- namely, Marcionism and Manicheism --- as well as several lesser schools --- such as the Simonians --- rejected the Jewish god, constrasting the Jealous God with the God of Love. Marcion's Anitheses are a perfect example of this philosophy.

Jesus never preached a different God than that of the Old testament. The old and New Testaments are to be taken in COntext as a whole showing the full aspect of God in Context. Jesus did profess a God of Love (as does many of the Phrophets and psalms in the Old Testament) Jesus also showed Jealousy in regards to rendering unto God what was Gods. May I point out the cleansing of the Temple episode. WHich if you look at carefully was not an outburst it was premeditated, he braided the whip he used. He was constantly berading the religious leaders for being hypocrites. It is a god of love that is jealous for our affection.

Actually, the New Testamental authors preached from the Greek Septugaint, not the Hebrew Torah.

Jesus spoke from the Torah in Jewish Synagogues, and at one point when finished said you have seen this fulfilled in me. Paul was a very educated man and yes he did use the Septuagent, but he also used the Hebrew Torah.

Furthermore, if you are following the arguments of the Pauline epistles, then the purpose of Christianity is render the Law irrelevant or unnecessary.

Paul did not teach an irrelevant idea of the Law. You need to reject the many time Paul pointed out that he himself upheld the Law. What he taught was an inadequacy of anyone to be able to live up to every aspect of the law, hence the reason for the need of the sacfifice of Jesus. He did stand by the fact that Gentiles should not be held to Jewish law since they were already being blessed by God without being circumcised. And yet Paul had Timothy circumcicised inorde not to be a problem for others. Paul taught not to be a stumbling block.

A bold claim, one that is made much more credible if actually supported by actual sources and citations.

i am not at home, I don't wont to incorrectly quote or document will get back to you

 

[heretic888]

Jesus never preached a different God than that of the Old testament.

With all due respect, you have no idea what "Jesus" did or did not preach. You only have Jesuine teachings as filtered through extant Christian gospels, both canonical and non-canonical.

As I have said before, both the terminology ("Lamb of God", "Son of Man", "Christ of God", etc.) as well as entire portions (i.e., the Beatitudes) of pre-Christian intertestamental works such as The Books of Enoch and Ecclesiasticus have been imported to our versions of the New Testament. The author of the Gospel of Luke is heavily dependent on Josephus. The author of the Gospel of John is heavily dependent on Philo. The author of the Gospel of Mark demonstrates a decided ignorance of both first century Jewish law as well as Palestinian geography.

All the available evidence points to the conclusion that the canonical Gospels are composite works derived from pre-existing source materials, none of which are authored by a native Palestinian that can read Hebrew.

Jesus spoke from the Torah in Jewish Synagogues, and at one point when finished said you have seen this fulfilled in me. Paul was a very educated man and yes he did use the Septuagent, but he also used the Hebrew Torah.

Your claims that "Jesus" and "Paul" quoted the Torah is an Appeal To Belief, it lacks any supporting evidence. It rests on the assumption that the events recorded in the texts in question actually happened, of which there is no evidence for believing so.

All extant Christian documents we have are in Greek, Latin, or Coptic. Whenever the Old Testament is quoted in these works, it is the mangled Septugaint translations.

Paul did not teach an irrelevant idea of the Law.

"Paul" never existed. Both his teachings and his "biography" are deliberately modeled after the stories of the mythical Orpheus.

The earliest set of Pauline epistles that we know of were probably authored by Marcion or one of his followers. "Paul" is never mentioned by any orthodox source until Irenaeus and his follower Tertullian, circa 190 CE. Even then, he is only mentioned when the redacted Catholic versions of "his" epistles are available, including the completely spurious Pastoral Letters, which were specifically authored by Tertullian in the 180's to combat gnosticism.

In any event, since Marcionism is the earliest strand of Pauline thought that we know of (the other early strand being Valentinian), and Marcionism is decidedly hostile to Jewish traditionalism (as repeatedly echoed by "Paul" in the epistles), then it doesn't take a prodigy to put two in two together.

i am not home, I don't wont to incorrectly quote or document will get back to you

Fair enough, but you should be forewarned that I have argued the pros and cons of every known historical "mention" of Jesus Christ at length on these forums and am perfectly willing to do so once again.

In any event, thanks for the dialogue. It is most refreshing.

Laterz.

 

[scottcatchot]

Fair enough, but you should be forewarned that I have argued the pros and cons of every known historical "mention" of Jesus Christ at length on these forums and am perfectly willing to do so once again.

Great! I do not profess to be a know it all regarding Christianity, but I do study. I welcome the debate because if nothing else I get to hear new oppositions and get to dig deeper to learn why I believe what I believe.

 

[scottcatchot]

It appears that you do not hold much opinion for the historical reliability of the Bible, so I would like to comment on this. First I would like to say that the reliability of the Scripture should be put to the same criteria used on all historical documents. Alot of people try to hold th Bible to more than is required for other texts believed to be reliable. Military Historian C. Sanders says the basic principles of Historiography is the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. The bibliographical test is how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and existing copies. There are known to be more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and around 9,300 other early versions and there is more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence. (to verify these numbers seee "Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p40) No other document of antiquity has anywhere near this many preserved texts. FOr comparison the Illiad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that survived and the first copy dates from the 13th century. SIr Frederic G. Kenyon (he was director and principal librarian of the British Museum states " Besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors and this time the difference is clear gain. In no other case is the interval of time between composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century;the earliest extant manuscripts(trifling scraps excepted)are of the fourth century- say from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years afterthe poets death.....The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

So in comparison to the entire range of Greek and Latin literature, The Illiad ranks second and they way it compares is as follows

Work written earliest copy timespan # copies
Illiad 900 B.C 400 B.C 500 Yrs 643
N.Testament A.D. 40-100 A.D. 125 25 yrs over 24,000

The A.D. 125 is conservative. There are some scraps (of John) that many place its date 98-117

The dead sea scrolls test for attest to the reliability of the Old Testament. Now one thing that the New Testamne thas going for it is that it was translated in different languages, Syriac, Latin or Coptic. Examinations of all the manuscripts and variations does bring out variations. Now first lets state that if a single word is mispelled in two thousand variations then that is counted as two thousand variants. But there is not one doctrine in danger throughout the entire New Testament due to variants. In fact Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude: "The new Testament, then , has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book a form that is 99.5 percent pure." This is backed up by the fact that even if we did not have the manuscripts of the bible, just from authors in antiquity that quoted from it, we could reproduce it almost in its entirety.

I am about to go and watch Ultimate Fighter I will come back later and address internal and external evidence that is abundant that points to the historical accuracy of the Bible.

 

[kamishinkan]

Sorry I stopped posting, I have been away and when I have been at my computer, I have not had time to sit down and debate, oh, I mean post. This thread has taken an interesting turn, can't wait to see where this goes.

 

[scottcatchot]

I know all that I said earlier does not prove anything except that what iis written in th Bible is essentially what was originally written. That does not prove its accuracy. That is where ,in part internal evidence comes in to play. Now lets first attack this in away that is fair. Like Aristotle's dictum says " The benefit of the doubt i to be given tothe document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." Otherwords we can't approach it by allready assuming it is incorrect. we must listen to the claims of the document and assume it is correct unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies. Well the accounts in the Bible are written by either eyewitnesses or those related to eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-3, 2Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, John 19:35, Luke 3:1) This closeness to the recorded accounts makes for a creditable witness. These books were ciculated at the time that people were still alive to verify facts in the Text. Many texts are from letterrs sent that circulated. The authors did not just say we have seen these things, but they in many places reminded the reader that they were witnesses of it. F.F. Bruce, former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at University of Manchester states" And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with;there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies( not to mention willful manipulation of the facts), which at once would be exposed by those who would be only to glad to do so. On the COntrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the Hearers; They not only say 'we are witnesses of these things'; but also' as you yourselves know'(ACts 2:22) Has there been any tendancy to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."

In addition you have things in the bible that someone logically would have left out if they were making it up. Historian WIll Durant puts it like this "Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelist, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed-the competition of the apostles for high places in the kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peters denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to His possible insanity, His early uncertainty in his mission, His confessions of ignorance as to the future, His moments of bitterness, His dispairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have inventes so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the gospels. After 2 centurie of higher criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in th history of western man."

 

[scottcatchot]

As far as external evidence , there are two important ones that can be found in Jospehus and Tacitus. ow I know you have problems with Josephus. He writes about Jesus in Antiquities and in Testimonium Flavianum. The latter is among one of the most controversal pasasages in ancient literture. According to Dr. Edwin M Yamauchi at Miami University There have been threee trends regarding the Josephus texts, first many early christians believed it to be wonderful and completly accurate a definate boost of corraborative ecidence, then there were some scholors who scoffed at its authenticity during the enlightment, And now there are a large consensus among scholars, both Jewish and Christian that believe in its over all authenticity even though there are some insertions. An example is like it would say About this time there lived Jesus,a wise man. this is generally not how Christians referred to Jesus and would be in line with How Jospehus would have relayed the information. The next line if indeed one ought to call him a man seems to imply that he is more than a man. That is not something in lines with how Josephus would have written so it was probably inserted. Now Josephus is considered a reliable and important historian throught the world and his accounts are significant to quote Dr. Yamauchi"especially since his accounts of the Jewish wars have proved to be very accurate; for example , they've been corroborated through archaelogical excavations at Masada as well as by historians like Tacitus. He's considered extremely important." On top of those testamonies there have been many archaeological findings that have proven the historical accuracy of the Bible in regrds too places, events etc. For something to be proven accurate in so many ways, it is IMHO silly, and has been said the same by scholars to believe that the people in the Bible are fictitious