• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What are the non-Biblical sources for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

Yeah, we most certainly do.



You've got the wrong one.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

William Mitchell Ramsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Well that's what you think. Here's what the scholar Ramsay Said:

Ramsay, a former atheist, devoted his whole life to archaeology and determined that he would disprove the Bible.

He set out for the Holy Land and decided to disprove the book of Acts. After 25 or more years (he had released book after book during this time), he was incredibly impressed by the accuracy of Luke in his writings finally declaring that ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy’ . . . ‘this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians’ . . . ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.’

Archaeology Verifies Bible Ch2

Yes, I made a mistake when I noted that one William Ramsay was a chemist, Nobel Prize winner even. The other William Ramsay was an archaeologist, they were both British to add even more confusion. However, despite multiple claims by various apologists, there is zero evidence that Ramsay was ever an atheist or that his original intentions were to "disprove the Bible."

Yet another apologetic website claiming that "Archaeology Verifies Bible" when the real science of archaeology says only that it confirms SOME of the stuff we can read in the Bible. More often than not the digging has found artifacts and remains that contradict biblical tales.

Although
 
As a History related question, there are several sources available in the History section of your local library. Online searches are good enough too.

Online searches are good enough for what, exactly? Finding information which confirms what one believes before they even tapped the ENTER key?
 
When one looks at history in a truly academic manner, they will often find that strongly-held beliefs have little to zero support in the records or other physical remains, such as grave markers, monuments and coins.

British historian, Sir Geoffrey Elton wrote the following in his book, The Practice of History (1991)
Historical research does not consist, as beginners in particular often suppose, in the pursuit of some particular evidence which will answer a particular question; it consists of an exhaustive, and exhausting, review of everything that may conceivably be germane to a given investigation. Properly observed, this principle provides a manifest and efficient safeguard against the dangers of personal selection of evidence. (p. 60)

Thomas L. Thompson (Professor Emeritus University of Copenhagen) in his book, The Messiah Myth, points out the similarities to be found between the various tales in the Gospels and the sayings found in the 27 books of the New Testament to similar stories and sayings found in Greek and Roman philosophy works written decades and even centuries earlier. Similarity does not mean exact copies. The fact of similarity should cause questions for those studying the period of Jesus life and the early decades of the Christian faith. For a proper historical investigation, one cannot start with any assumptions as to the factual nature of what is being studied.
 
Yet another apologetic website claiming that "Archaeology Verifies Bible" when the real science of archaeology says only that it confirms SOME of the stuff we can read in the Bible. More often than not the digging has found artifacts and remains that contradict biblical tales.

Your "more often than not" claim is self-serving fluff. It's just the opposite from my 40 years of research.

However, to be fair, can you show me an archaeological find from the Gospels / Book of Acts that contradicts the Bible? Just your best one or two please.
 
Your "more often than not" claim is self-serving fluff. It's just the opposite from my 40 years of research.

However, to be fair, can you show me an archaeological find from the Gospels / Book of Acts that contradicts the Bible? Just your best one or two please.

The Bible Unearthed begins by considering what it terms the 'preamble' of the Bible—the Book of Genesis—and its relationship to archaeological evidence for the context in which its narratives are set. Archaeological discoveries about society and culture in the ancient near east lead the authors to point out a number of anachronisms, suggestive that the narratives were actually set down in the 9th–7th centuries:[7]

The Joseph story refers to camel-based traders carrying gum, balm, and myrrh, which is unlikely prior to the first millennium, such activity only becoming common in the 8th–7th centuries BCE, when Assyrian hegemony enabled this Arabian trade to flourish into a major industry.[10] Recent excavations in the Timna Valley discovered what may be the earliest bones of domesticated camels found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This is seen as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time.[11][12]

The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Your "more often than not" claim is self-serving fluff. It's just the opposite from my 40 years of research.

However, to be fair, can you show me an archaeological find from the Gospels / Book of Acts that contradicts the Bible? Just your best one or two please.

Please rephrase your question, as the way it reads we seemingly must show something "found" in the Bible as contradicting the Bible?
 
Please rephrase your question, as the way it reads we seemingly must show something "found" in the Bible as contradicting the Bible?

So you're trying to tell me the Pool at Bethesda (John 5:1-15) and the Pool of Siloam (John 9:1-7), etc., are not archaeological finds that confirm parts of the New Testament?

Or is it that you can't find any Gospel / New Testament archaeological contradictions to support your opinions?
 
Please rephrase your question, as the way it reads we seemingly must show something "found" in the Bible as contradicting the Bible?

The bible is full of contradictions.
 
The Bible Unearthed begins by considering what it terms the 'preamble' of the Bible—the Book of Genesis—and its relationship to archaeological evidence for the context in which its narratives are set. Archaeological discoveries about society and culture in the ancient near east lead the authors to point out a number of anachronisms, suggestive that the narratives were actually set down in the 9th–7th centuries:[7]

The Joseph story refers to camel-based traders carrying gum, balm, and myrrh, which is unlikely prior to the first millennium, such activity only becoming common in the 8th–7th centuries BCE, when Assyrian hegemony enabled this Arabian trade to flourish into a major industry.[10] Recent excavations in the Timna Valley discovered what may be the earliest bones of domesticated camels found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This is seen as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time.[11][12]

The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Finkelstein is a late-dater and his claims have been discredited any number of times.

He's also had to revise his dating claims that he used as a basis to try to discredit the Bible.

Israel Finkelstein Revises His Dating: Is the Indefatigable Minimalist Slipping?
 
Do you have proof of the resurrection? Forget the new age claptrap. What does it's science bitch mean?

I guess you are not a Breaking Bad fan. The evidence to me of the Resurrection is the scriptures. I believe the testimony of the prophets. It's faith. The only real secular evidence is the Book of Mormon. The reason for this is that it can be tested scientifically for forgery, and if it it is shown not to be a forgery then the most likely scenario is that it is what it claims to be, the word of God. There is enormous amount of evidence imho when tested against the 600 BC Judea window that the BoM peoples inherited culturally. But personally, the reason I believe in the Resurrection is that I believe the words of the prophets and confirmation by the spirit. You think stuff like that is silly, I don't.
 
I guess you are not a Breaking Bad fan. The evidence to me of the Resurrection is the scriptures. I believe the testimony of the prophets. It's faith. The only real secular evidence is the Book of Mormon. The reason for this is that it can be tested scientifically for forgery, and if it it is shown not to be a forgery then the most likely scenario is that it is what it claims to be, the word of God. There is enormous amount of evidence imho when tested against the 600 BC Judea window that the BoM peoples inherited culturally. But personally, the reason I believe in the Resurrection is that I believe the words of the prophets and confirmation by the spirit. You think stuff like that is silly, I don't.

"Here is a simple example of how Joseph Smith was a fraud. You can read this in the official Mormon History, but few Mormons ever bother to read it. Some farmers in Kinderhook devised a hoax in 1843 and made up some copper plates which they claimed contained ancient writings. They planted them in an Indian burial mound and later dug them up again. When Smith saw the plates, he immediately "translated" part of them, which (he claimed in his diary) identified the writings as from "a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh...". Here is the exact quote from the Documentary History of the Church:

"I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters."

"I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth. "

For many years, the church claimed that these plates were authentic ancient writings, in spite of the fact that the farmers later admitted the hoax - evidently the fact that Smith had translated part of them made it too embarrassing to accept the hoax. After resorting to more and more implausible and desperate arguments, the church flip-flopped about 10 years ago, and now admits that the plates are phony. The 1981 August Ensign has the statement where the church admits that the plates were a hoax. Of course, this leaves them with the embarrassing quote from Smith's diary.... In spite of the fact that this quote is confirmed by contemporary newspaper reports, they conclude that THIS has to be a false report (indeed, many supposed entries in Smith's diary are generally regarded as fraudulent -- something that church historians don't like to emphasize).

The essential problem here is not the Kinderhook plates themselves, of course. The problem is that since Smith is revealed as credulous or deceitful in cases where he CAN be checked, the Book of Mormon translation, where he cannot be checked, is rendered highly suspicious.

The church has been deceitful in its creating the image of Joseph Smith as an unlearned country boy. He was very intelligent and capable of reading at a high level and memorizing enormous materials. The primary source for the Book of Mormon was a book written by a man named Ethan Smith (no relation) who lived a short distance from Joseph and was a minister to a family none other than Oliver Cowdery's. This book is called the View of the Hebrews and was written in 1823 and republished in 1825. This book contained everything Joseph Smith needed to create the Book of Mormon."

Why I Left Mormonism - the Mormon Church
 
Whoaa he got discredited by the APOLOGISTS @ The Associates for Bible Research. Now there is is serious academic institution, NOT. :lamo

Beats the Finkelstein, who has an anti-Biblical bias of major proportions.
 
Israel Finkelstein is a late-dater and his claims have been discredited any number of times.

He's also had to revise his dating claims that he used as a basis to try to discredit the Bible.

Israel Finkelstein Revises His Dating: Is the Indefatigable Minimalist Slipping?

Nice headline, which while true does somewhat over emphasise the change which Prof Finkelstein has made in his dating estimates. When looking at something from 3000 years ago, a change of 30 to 50 years is rather inconsequential in an estimated date.

As a physical location such as the Pool of Bethesda or the Pool of Siloam will have an existence separate from any fiction written about those locations, they do little to prove the tales found in the Bible.

A contradictory archaeological find would be something like the pottery shards found with the phrase "Yahweh and his wife Asherah" which would seem to indicate that at one time the earliest people called Jews had a slightly different belief about their deity.

Contradictory archaeological finds showing the possibility that Nazareth was not large enough to support a synagogue would be a bit of a problem for the Bible.

Discovering that various towns are not located where the Bible says they were is a bit of a problem.
 
Nice headline, which while true does somewhat over emphasise the change which Prof Finkelstein has made in his dating estimates. When looking at something from 3000 years ago, a change of 30 to 50 years is rather inconsequential in an estimated date.

As a physical location such as the Pool of Bethesda or the Pool of Siloam will have an existence separate from any fiction written about those locations, they do little to prove the tales found in the Bible.

A contradictory archaeological find would be something like the pottery shards found with the phrase "Yahweh and his wife Asherah" which would seem to indicate that at one time the earliest people called Jews had a slightly different belief about their deity.

Contradictory archaeological finds showing the possibility that Nazareth was not large enough to support a synagogue would be a bit of a problem for the Bible.

Discovering that various towns are not located where the Bible says they were is a bit of a problem.

Well, when you have a pet archaeological find that contradicts the Gospels and Acts, let me know. Until then I think the lack of them speaks well for the credibility of those works.
 
How can a philosophical treatise be proven or contradicted by a physical artifact?

We know that Quirinius was not governor, hegemon, legate or prefect of Syria during the reign of Herod the Great, which causes a problem for the dating of Jesus birth.

We know there was no empire-wide census ever during the Roman era.

Exactly what archaeological finds 'prove' the tales told in the New Testament? Has the boat of the fisher men been found? Do we know of any grave markers for Peter or Paul? What is the proof that the Apostles wrote the Gospels?
 
"Here is a simple example of how Joseph Smith was a fraud. You can read this in the official Mormon History, but few Mormons ever bother to read it. Some farmers in Kinderhook devised a hoax in 1843 and made up some copper plates which they claimed contained ancient writings. They planted them in an Indian burial mound and later dug them up again. When Smith saw the plates, he immediately "translated" part of them, which (he claimed in his diary) identified the writings as from "a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh...". Here is the exact quote from the Documentary History of the Church:

"I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters."

"I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth. "

For many years, the church claimed that these plates were authentic ancient writings, in spite of the fact that the farmers later admitted the hoax - evidently the fact that Smith had translated part of them made it too embarrassing to accept the hoax. After resorting to more and more implausible and desperate arguments, the church flip-flopped about 10 years ago, and now admits that the plates are phony. The 1981 August Ensign has the statement where the church admits that the plates were a hoax. Of course, this leaves them with the embarrassing quote from Smith's diary.... In spite of the fact that this quote is confirmed by contemporary newspaper reports, they conclude that THIS has to be a false report (indeed, many supposed entries in Smith's diary are generally regarded as fraudulent -- something that church historians don't like to emphasize).

The essential problem here is not the Kinderhook plates themselves, of course. The problem is that since Smith is revealed as credulous or deceitful in cases where he CAN be checked, the Book of Mormon translation, where he cannot be checked, is rendered highly suspicious.

There is no credible evidence that Joseph Smith ever accepted the kinderhook plates as real. When the hoax was first presented to the Mormons, there were some Mormons who were initially excited and had an anticipation of Joseph Smith translating it, but there are no direct quotes from Joseph Smith in regards to it. The one quote that was attributed to Joseph that you gave above has been shown to be not from him. Jeff Lindsay on this: "Critics point to an entry apparently made by Joseph Smith in the official History of the Church dated May 1843, which states that Joseph translated part of the Kinderhook plates and found them to be written by a descendant of Ham and of the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, this statement is actually from the journal of William Clayton. Clayton's journal entry was added to the serialized "History of Joseph Smith" printed in the Deseret News in Utah in 1856, long after the death of Joseph, though it was changed to be in the first person from Joseph's perspective: "I have translated..." instead of "President J. has translated...." It is well known, according to Kimball, "that the serialized 'History of Joseph Smith' consists largely of items from other persons' personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith's lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet's life 'in his own words.' " Kimball notes that this poor practice was common in that century for biographers. The source of the ideas expressed by Clayton is unknown, but seems consistent with the high level of speculation among many members of the Church about the significance of the Kinderhook find. Some said those plates dealt with Book of Mormon peoples, others said Egyptians. Many spoke of a translation that they hoped would be undertaken. The significant thing is that there is no evidence that Joseph showed any serious interest in them. No translation was undertaken. No attempt was made to purchase the plates (as did occur with the authentic Egyptian scrolls and mummies that were brought to Joseph, part of the story of the Book of Abraham). They left Nauvoo without fanfare and apparently without objection - a strange reaction if Joseph had felt they were a sacred treasure of some kind. " It was like two decades after the death of Joseph Smith that the alleged discoverers of the plates, trying to discredit Joseph Smith, admitted it was a hoax.
 
The church has been deceitful in its creating the image of Joseph Smith as an unlearned country boy. He was very intelligent and capable of reading at a high level and memorizing enormous materials. The primary source for the Book of Mormon was a book written by a man named Ethan Smith (no relation) who lived a short distance from Joseph and was a minister to a family none other than Oliver Cowdery's. This book is called the View of the Hebrews and was written in 1823 and republished in 1825. This book contained everything Joseph Smith needed to create the Book of Mormon." Why I Left Mormonism - the Mormon Church

The only ones that are deceitful are the anti-Mormon sources that you love to copy and paste without even investigating whether they are true and accurate. The fact is that when the Book of Mormon was being translated or fabricated depending on which perspective the reader has, Joseph was around 22/23 years old with about an eighth grade education. No one doubts that he was bright but it is a fact that he was very young, grew up as a farm boy in rural upstate New York, and had little formal education. Stating these facts is not being deceitful, it is you who are being deceitful in your twisting of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints states about Joseph. In regards to the allegation that the View of Hebrews is the primary source for the Book of Mormon, unfortunately for those who make this allegation, the rare View of Hebrews can now be read online and it is pretty obvious it is not the source of the Book of Mormon. There are a few parallels like the common Puritan belief in America that the Native Americans were descendants of the Jews, but broad parallels are easy to find in many unrelated texts. "If Joseph plagiarized from Ethan Smith, we would expect to find that unique aspects of View of the Hebrews - ideas, names, stories that are not also found in the Bible or other sources - would have been incorporated into the Book of Mormon, but no such "fingerprints" are found. There is no real evidence of Joseph relying on that text. In fact, there are extreme differences between the two texts at every turn which seriously challenge the hypothesis that Joseph plagiarized from Ethan Smith."-Jeff Lindsay. In the View of Hebrews there are also no hebraisms, chiasmus, ancient Semitic poetry, numerous authentic non Biblical ancient Egyptian and Hebrew names, etc. Below are links to both books and readers can decide for themselves if the View of Hebrews is the primary source for the Book of Mormon:

View of Hebrews:
https://archive.org/details/viewhebrewsexhi00smitgoog

Book of Mormon:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng
 
Last edited:
To start the discussion: What are the non-Biblical sources for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Quoting the Bible ain't seen as answering the question, quoting early church Fathers is acceptable.

First of all, I have to question the wisdom of pursuing knowledge in this way. There is a vast wealth of literature available to you on this topic written by experts who have dedicated their lives to studying the historical Jesus and engaging in academic discussion with others who do the same. There is a world of great literature on this topic out there. In addition, there's another mountain of writing on the topic available right here on the internet for free on various blogs, university networks, etc. On top of that you have a wide variety of videos available to you on Youtube.

Of all the ways you could learn about the historicity of Jesus, engaging with (mostly) amateurs on a political forum has to rank among the most useless.

Secondly, how is it logical to accept the writings of church fathers but only as long as they didn't write early enough and authoritatively enough that their writings were deemed fit to include in the bible? The writings of the earliest church fathers are in our bibles, you are discarding the earliest available evidence a priori. I could see the logic behind discarding all of the writings of the church fathers, if your goal is to look for independent or hostile sources and avoid partisans; that would at least make some sense. But accepting the writings of second century and later church fathers but not first century church fathers whose writings made it into the bible, doesn't seem logical.
 
Last edited:
In answer to CrabCake, the only individual of the late 1st, early 2nd Century seen as a "church father" would be Papias. Those whose words ended up in the canonical text are not normally included in the category "church father". Of course there is some debate as to whether or not the Gospels were written in the 1st Century.
 
The subject has become, shall we say, a bit controversial as the prominence of Jesus mythicists has grown. One aspect I had not been familiar with was how old the subject of Jesus mythicism actually is; it was quite prominent in European academic circles during the late 19th - early 20th Centuries but lost acceptance toward the middle of the 20th and now is back again.

There are agnostic and atheist professors who believe there was a real human being, walking around Roman Judea, preaching a subversive interpretation of the Torah, they just don't believe he was a god or God. We also have the mythicists who totally reject the idea of Jesus ever existing or that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament is a composite being based upon several apocalyptic preachers upset about Roman control of the Temple in Jerusalem.

To start the discussion: What are the non-Biblical sources for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Quoting the Bible ain't seen as answering the question, quoting early church Fathers is acceptable.

Why are Sources outside the New testament inherently more valid than those inside the New testament?

Given that from a purely historical viewpoint the whether or not theologians include a writing inside or outside the New testament is completely arbitrary.
 
Why are Sources outside the New testament inherently more valid than those inside the New testament?

Because inside the New Testament there's writings of a virgin birth and other miracles. It'd be like asking why sources outside of the Harry Potter books are more valid than those inside of the Harry Potter books in reference to 20th century England.
 
Why are Sources outside the New testament inherently more valid than those inside the New testament?

Given that from a purely historical viewpoint the whether or not theologians include a writing inside or outside the New testament is completely arbitrary.

Why are non-biblical sources more valid? Perhaps they didn't have an inherent interest in the validity of the claims being made. The Roman Empire was far more tolerant of religious beliefs before Christianity took control of the reins of power.
 
Back
Top Bottom