Re: Historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ

From: Harvey Newstrom (
Date: Tue Jan 04 2000 - 09:04:14 MST

<> wrote on Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:44 am,

> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:31:35 -0500 "Harvey Newstrom"
> <> writes:
> > <> wrote on Monday, January 03, 2000 2:55 am,
> > Sorry, but most of the books of the New Testament were letters
> > written by Paul, who never met Christ.
> Yes, Paul converted to Christianity a couple of years after Christ was
> killed, after he had been dispatched to Damascus to put down a Christian
> community which he subsequently joined, but it might be fair to say that
> he was a contemporary of Jesus, was closely associated with the some of
> the earliest Christians, and was able to recount the life and teachings
> of Jesus.

You claimed that most of the books of the New Testament were written by
Apostles who personally knew Christ. Paul is not an eyewitness to Christ.
He cannot recount the life and teaching of Jesus. He can only repeat what
he has been told, as do modern believers today. Paul cannot give historical
evidence for the existence of Jesus.

> > > The Jews consider Jesus to have been a Rabbi (religious teacher),
> >
> > I would like to see some evidence of this.
> I can't provide a specific quotation from a Jewish authority, but it is
> not surprising to me that he could be called a Rabbi, since he was a Jew
> who instructed Jews on religious matters, and had many followers, which
> is pretty much the definition of a Rabbi. A controversial Rabbi, to be
> sure.

You are using the Christian bible as evidence again. There are no Jewish
sources that list Jesus Christ as a recognized Rabbi. You are not citing
any Jewish historical evidence for Jesus. You are repeating what the Bible
says again. You are citing the bible as evidence for itself. This is not
independent historical evidence.

> > > and Islam lists Jesus as a prophet, one of many prophets who came
> > before> Mohammed,> > the Seal of the Prophets (the last prophet).
> >
> > Mohammed was born around 570AD, and died around 632AD. The writings
> > attributed to him occurred after that date, over 600 years after
> > Christ.

> Even though Mohammed lived centuries after Jesus, it would not preclude
> Jesus being recognized by Muslims as a prophet. The holy building called
> the Kabaa, which looks like a black cube, located in the center of the
> religious compound at Mecca, was built by Abraham (according to legend),
> so that suggests that Islam reveres Abraham, who long pre-dates Jesus,
> and who is part of the Jewish tradition. The Muslims call Jews and
> Christians 'People of the Book', meaning that Jews and Christians adhere
> to the holy scriptures which pre-date the Koran, and Muslims allow that
> Jews and Christians worship the one true God. That suggests that Muslims
> respect the scriptures of the Christians and the Jews, just as Christians
> respect at least some of the scriptures of the Jews. I don't have a copy
> of the Koran, much less one with an index, so I can't easily look up
> whether any mention Jesus actually appears in the Koran.

You make my point for me. The Muslims respect the scriptures of the
Christians. They quote the New Testament passages as saying Jesus existed.
Again, you cite quotations of the New Testament as evidence for Jesus. The
Muslims do not have independent historical evidence for Jesus Christ.

All three of your examples boil down to quoting the New Testament references
to Jesus. You have not presented any historical evidence outside of the
Christian scripture itself. We all are aware of the Christian scripture.
The question is whether there is any historical evidence outside of the
Christian claim that Jesus actually existed.

Harvey Newstrom <>
Certified Consultant,  Legal Hacker, Engineer, Research Scientist, Author.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:02 MDT