Real evidence

Transcription

I would like to present to you a case for the historical existence of Jesus. Lately there have been many people who have been claiming that there is no evidence to verify His actual existence. It has become so widely claimed by recent speakers, that most of us take for granted what we have been told although it is rare to find anyone who has actually looked for themselves to verify this claim. First you should know that this view is a new one all throughout history skeptics used to claim that Jesus did not rise from the dead, or that His miracles were only parlor tricks, or that the disciples stole His body from the tomb, but they never claimed He didn't exist. Claiming that He never existed only became possible recently due to the long period of time that has passed since the 1st century. In the same way right now it would be ludicrous to say that your great grandfather never existed, but nineteen hundred years later it would be easy to convince someone of it. In actuality, there is much more evidence for Jesus' existence than there is for almost any important or famous person of that time. In this presentation we will be using only non-biblical evidence, in other words, we won't be using the Bible to prove the Bible. We will also be stopping after every account to address the typical skeptical questions about each claim. I warn you though, if you watch this video you will no longer be able to believe that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus, and you might even start to question the integrity of the research of those that have told you that there isn't. I will be quoting from a website called thedevineevidence.com and I will link it in the description section of this video. Cornelius Tacitus lived from 55 to 120 AD. Tacitus was a first and second century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of Rome Tacitus verifies the biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26 to 36 AD during the reign of Tiberius Tacitus writes the following: "Christus, the founder of the Christian name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition were oppressed for a time broke out again not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." It would confirm the following: 1) That Jesus did exist, 2) That He was the founder of Christianity, 3) That Jesus was put to death by Pilate, 4) That Christianity originated in Judea, with Jesus and 5) that Christianity later spread to Rome. Skeptic Interjection #1: Could Tacitus, have taken his information from Christian sources? Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator it is more likely that Tacitus referenced government records over Christian testimony, it is also possible Tacitus received some of his information from his friend and fellow secular historian Pliny the Younger. Yet even if Tacitus referenced some of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical investigation. An example of Tacitus criticizing testimony given to him, even from his dear friend Pliny, is found here in "Annals 55" Tacitus distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost seventy times in his history! If he felt this account of Jesus was only rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified but he did not. Skeptic Interjection #2: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation or forgery? Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of this passage, it is highly unlikely Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and an insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage. Skeptic Interjection #3: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers? Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such as source. Assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them, however our actual answer comes from the context of the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence, which is a topic not debated at this point in history. Let us move on to Lucian of Samosata. Lucian was a second century Greek satirist and rhetorician who scornfully describes his views of early Christianity. Though he ridicules the Christians and their Christ, his writings confirmed Jesus was executed via crucifixion and that He was the founder of Christianity he says, "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... It was impressed on them by their original lawgiver... That they are all brothers from the moment they are converted and deny the gods of Greece, and worship their crucified sage, and live after his laws..." -The Death of Peregrinus 11-13 What this passage reveals and how it confirms the biblical account: 1) That Jesus did exist, 2) That Jesus was the founder of Christianity, 3) Jesus was worshiped by His followers, and 4) that Jesus suffered death by crucifixion. Skeptic Interjection #1: Can we consider Lucian's testimony reliable, due to the source being a literary work? Answer: Lucian's comments revolved around historical events in Lucian's work: "The Way to Write History," he openly criticizes his contemporaries, who distort history to flatter their masters or those who fill in historical gaps with their personal conjecture. He writes, "...the historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened. He may nurse some private dislikes, but he will attach far more importance to the public good and set the truth high above his hate. For history I say again, has this and only this for its own if a man will start upon it he must sacrifice to no god but truth, he must neglect all else!" Skeptic Interjection #2: Is it possible Lucian received his knowledge from Christian sources, or that this passage is interpolation or forgery? Answer: Seeing how adamant Lucian was in regards to historical accuracy and critical investigation our answer is an emphatic no! As to the passage being a Christian forgery chances are that the reference to Jesus would be for more favorable if this was so, Lucian refers to Jesus only as a man, a lawgiver, and a sage: human; not divine descriptions. He never once refers to Jesus as God, furthermore, there isn't anything in the above statement that reveals what wasn't already known, it merely asserts that Jesus lived, preached and died. Remember at this time Christians were trying to prove Jesus' divinity, not His existence next we're going to look at Flavius Josephus, and before we get started on the details of Josephus I would like to make a personal comment, and that is that I have heard for a very long time that this Josephus quote was an obvious forgery but if you look into it, you will find that there are really only two different versions of this particular account of Josephus' talking about Jesus, he actually talks about Jesus in another account that is not disputed. But this particular one is and what you will find is that there is really two versions and they don't really differ in anything important, at least when we are arguing Jesus' existence because they both admit that He existed, that He was crucified by Pontius Pilate, that He had many followers both Jews and Gentiles, and that He performed what Josephus calls, "wonderful works." I think one reason that this particular passage of Josephus has been singled out for accusations and even misinformation is that it is a very good account from a very prominent historian who lived at that time, and would have probably interviewed the apostles themselves. All that being said there is a lot to debate and to talk about this particular passage and the other passage that Josephus mentions Jesus in. So let's look into it. This is what was written: "Now there was about this time, Jesus a wise man, if it would be lawful to call him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles, He was the Christ and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men among us had condemned Him to the cross, those that loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning Him and the tribes of Christians, so named for Him, are not extinct at this day." This is what the other version reads: "Now there was about this time Jesus a wise man, for He was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles, and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men among us had condemned him to the cross. Those that loved Him at first did not forsake Him and the tribes of Christians, so named from Him, are not extinct to this day." Skeptic Interjection #1: This passage contains proclamations that an orthodox Jew would not make, such as Jesus being the Christ. Answer: In other translations: Greek and Arabic, the suspicious statements contained disclaimers such as: "Jesus who was believed to be the Christ" and "...it has been reported." This presents the theory that Josephus was recording the beliefs regarding Jesus and not necessarily his personal opinion as responsible historians should do. If anything it could lead to the speculation that Christian authors did not add to the text but rather edited it by deleting the disclaimers. You should also realize that the earliest versions of "Antiquities of the Jews" contain this passage as it is presented in the first case, the objection usually is that the earliest copy is not until the 10th century. However, we do have several citations of this passage by other authors, prior to the 10th century. Skeptic Interjection #2: Early Christian authors like Origen and Justin Martyr do not mention this passage in their writings. Answer: I'm not sure what the motive behind this objection is because Origen does reference the other passage by Josephus, yet critics claim the reference is too late to be reliable, but for the argument's sake if we assume that this passage did exist, and the foremost scholars believed it did, the early church fathers might not have felt the need to refer to it. The original passage serves as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. A topic not debated at this point as the burden of proof revolved around his divinity. We will now examine the second passage given to us by Josephus fortunately it is not surrounded in as much controversy it says, "So [Ananus] assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."- Antiquities XX 9 Skeptic Interjection #1: Is it possible this passage was a forgery by early Christians? Answer: It must be noted that no copy of Antiquities has ever surfaced without the above text quoted as it is above critics are suspicious of the so-called Christ statement yet this reference rather than the Christ shows Josephus was not condoning the belief but simply documenting it also this passage concerns the actions of the priest Ananias, Jesus and James were not even the primary focus of this verse. Lastly this passage is cited in other early works which attest to its authenticity. Even if we dismiss the disputed works in Josephus' testimonium, we still see that he testifies to a number things in the above two passages. 1) That Jesus lived in the first century, He performed miracles, some believe Jesus to be the Christ, He was a teacher, He had many followers, He was tried by Pilate, He was crucified, He was a founder of Christianity, and James was the brother of Jesus. Next is Pliny the Younger. Pliny the Younger admits to torturing and executing Christians who refused to deny Christ. Those who denied the charges were spared in order to exalt the Roman gods and curse the name of Christ Pliny addresses his concerns to Emperor Trajan that too many Christians were being killed for their refusal to deny their faith. He says, "I asked them directly if they were Christians, those who persisted, I ordered away. Those who denied that they were or ever had been Christians worshiped both your image and the image of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before the dawn and sing to Christ as if He were a god, all the more I believed it was necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant-maids which were called deaconesses by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition therefore I stopped the examination and hastened to consult you. On account of the number of people in danger, for many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger. -Pliny's Letter to Emperor Trajan Though Pliny states some of the accused denied the charges, a recurring theme in the correspondences between Pliny and Trajan is the willingness of the true believer to die for Christ. This would hardly be reasonable if they knew He never existed. Skeptic Interjection #1: How does dying for one's belief verify the actual existence of Jesus? The sincerity of a belief does not necessarily make the belief true. How does this passage specifically confirm a historical Jesus and not just the existence of Christians in Rome? Answer: Pliny states Christians worshiped Christ as if he were a god. This indicates one who would not normally be considered a god such as a human who was exalted to divine status also the early Christians would have been in a position to know if Jesus was a historical figure or not though critics can claim these martyrs took Jesus' existence solely on faith, common sense tells us that there would have been a lot more evidence of a historical Jesus at this time than what has been preserved until today. According to early historians Jesus' great nephew and other relatives were still alive, as well as the associates of the original apostles. Such individuals could easily verify his existence, also documents which have been lost to us were still in existence such as Jesus' trial records and the census records of His birth and were even referenced by early authors who wrote about Jesus. These individuals had every reason to be certain of Jesus' existence and were willing to die because of it. Skeptic Interjection #2: Pliny also states some recanted their testimony perhaps they did so because they knew Jesus was a myth. Answer: There are several rational explanations as to why some would recant their Christian beliefs, Pliny readily admits to torturing some of the accused. Are admissions or denials really credible under torture? Also the accused knew that if they did not recant, they will be put to death. Fallible human rationalization: confess and go home and work off the hard feelings with Jesus later or suffer crucifixion. Also some of the accused could have been lackadaisical Christians who half-heartily accepted Christianity because of a spouse, parent or friend. He would have had no problem reverting back to paganism upon facing persecution. There were halfhearted (double-minded) Christians two thousand years ago just like there are halfhearted Christians today, just because there were some who may have recanted out of fear or poor judgment doesn't dismiss the deaths of the other individuals who were certain of Jesus' existence and died because they refused to curse Him Next is Celsus. Celsus was a second century Roman author and an avid opponent of Christianity he went to great lengths to disprove the divinity of Jesus. Yet never denied His actual existence, unfortunately for Celsus he sets himself up for criticism by mimicking the exact accusations brought against Jesus by the Pharisees which had already been addressed and refuted in the New Testament. There are two very important facts regarding Celsus which make him one of the most important witnesses in this discussion. Though most secular passages are accused of being Christian interpolations we can accept with certainty that this is not the case with Celsus. the sheer volume of his writings specifically designed to discredit Christianity coupled with the hostile accusations presented in his work dismiss the chance immediately, also the idea of Celsus getting his information entirely from Christian sources another reoccurring accusation against secular evidence is wholly absurd! He is obviously aware of his opponents belief as anyone who is engaging in a debate should be. Celsus wrote his exposition in a form of dialogue between a "Jewish critic" and himself. This gives us cause to believe that he used non-christian, probably Jewish sources on Jesus' miracles he writes, "Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god. It was by any means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..." Not only does Celsus confirm Jesus' existence here, he also tries to debate the source of His miracles. Like the Pharisees of Jesus' day Celsus tries to dismiss these miracles, as both demonic possession and cheap parlor tricks. However, he is clearly grasping at straws, on one hand Celsus accuses Jesus of performing magic learned in Egypt, then later states that it is by the power of possession, then states the miracles were not really miracles at all but were illusionary tricks performed by a deceiver, then finally states that the miracles never occurred. On the virgin birth he writes, Jesus had come from a village in Judea and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her hands. His mother had turned out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery with the Roman soldier named Pantera being thus driven away by her husband and wondering about in disgrace she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard, Celsus acknowledges Jesus' birth and existence but does not accept the concept of a virgin conception. He tries to dismiss Mary's premarital pregnancy as a result of an affair she had with the Roman soldier. Strangely enough, there is a very similar passage in the Jewish Talmud which makes the same accusation. This gives us reason to believe that Celsus may have referenced Jewish sources for some of his arguments. On the crucifixion Celsus writes, "Jesus accordingly exhibited after His death only the appearance of wounds received on the cross and was not in reality so wounded, as He is described to have been." In this statement, Celsus confirms Jesus' death by crucifixion although he claims the only wounds Jesus received were those inflicted by the crucifixion thus denying any previous torture had taken place but not even history offers Celsus the benefit of the doubt as floggings were the standard form tortured given to victims prior to the crucifixion. Celsus contradicts himself yet again when he later states that Jesus was probably never even crucified, but instead had an impostor die in His place. Skeptic Interjection #1: Celsus also states "It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well enough construct to conceal this monstrous fiction." So how do we know that Celsus is referring to a historical Jesus, and not just debating a 'myth of Jesus'? Answer: Evidence which shows Celsus to be refuting aspects of a historical Jesus is as follows: 1) Satisfied with his presentation of evidence Celsus offers his conclusion that Jesus was only a man; not a myth or God as the Apostles had claimed. That's pretty clear that he thought that he existed. 2) Instead of denying the alleged events Celsus offers alternative theories to the early Christian claims, like the virgin birth being a cover up for an illegitimate pregnancy, and the miracles actually being the works of sorcery, if he was discussing a mythical character he would not have needed to go to such lengths but to merely have dismissed Jesus as a myth. After all, there is no easier way to discredit a religion than to assert its founder never existed! Of course, this is the argument Celsus never makes. 3) Celsus refers to his belief that the claims such as the virgin birth and the resurrection were embellishments created by Christians, not that Jesus Himself was a myth. Celsus was debating the claims of Jesus' divinity not His existence. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, lived from 69 to 130 AD Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of Roman Caesars and historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an analyst for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of Christian Jews from Rome mentioned in Acts 18:2 and confirms that the Christian faith had been founded by Christ. He says, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Claudius expelled them from Rome." - Life of Claudius 25.4 Skeptic Interjection #1: Because Suetonius misspells Christus as "Chrestus" is it possible that he was referring to someone else? Answer: Because Chrestus was an actual Greek name critics speculate that Suetonius may have been referring to a specific civil agitator. I would like to present a few arguments as to why I feel this is a reference to Jesus. In order to get as close to the author's intent as possible, this is the passage as it exists in the original Latin Suetonius seems to imply the word "Chrestus" as a title; not as a reference to a particular rebel. Though I have seen critics cite the passage as a certain one, Chrestus, we can see that this is incorrect by the lack of the original Latin word "quodam" which means "a certain person or thing" in the original Latin. Suetonius uses the word "instigation" not "instigator," the Latin word referring to an "instigator" is "impulsor" but the term referring to an instigation is "impulsore" and this is the word Suetonius uses. Thus affirming the belief that he is using the word "Chrestus" as a title and not as a name. It was common for both pagan and Christian authors to spell the name using either an "e" or an "i" and we know that the Christian authors were obviously referring to Jesus when they spelled the name Christus. Tertullian criticizes pagan disdain or hate for Christianity and points out the fact that they can't even spell the name correctly. He implies the common misspelling of "Christus" by their use of the term "Chrestians", he writes, "Most people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name it is wrongly pronounced by you as "Chrestians" for you do not even know accurately the name you hate, but the special ground of dislike to the sect is that it bears the name of its founder - Apology Chapter 3 Next is Thallus, unknown to 52 AD, although his works exist only in fragments "Julius Africanus" debates Thallus' explanation, of the mid-day darkness which occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a natural occurrence: a solar eclipse but Africanus argues and any astronomer can confirm a solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon, due to the alignment of the planets. Phlegon of Tralles, a second century secular historian, also mentions the darkness and tries to dismiss it as a solar eclipse. He also states that the event occurred during the time of Tiberius Caesar this is what was written, "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness, the rocks were rent by an earthquake in many places in Judea and the other districts were thrown down." "The Darkness," Thallus in the third book of his history calls, "...as it appears to me without reason an Eclipse of the Sun for the Hebrews celebrate the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon and the passion of Our Savior falls on the day before the Passover, but an eclipse of the Sun takes place only when the moon comes under the Sun and it cannot happen at any other time." Phlegon records that, "...in the time of Tiberius Caesar at the full moon there was an eclipse of the Sun from the sixth hour to the ninth Manifestly (Unmistakably) that One of which we speak! Skeptic Interjection #1 Why doesn't Pliny the Elder or Seneca mention this event in their writings? Answer: Pliny focused his writings on natural astronomical events that had physical scientific explanations. It is doubtful that he would have found it necessary to record an event of supernatural origin I can also find no mention of him being in Judea at the time so, it is doubtful he would have mentioned it, if he did not witness the event first hand Seneca focused his writings on dramas, dialogues and tragedy and like Pliny it is doubtful he was in Judea during this event. Skeptic Interjection #2: Because Thallus and Phlegon's work exist only in fragments, can their testimonies be considered reliable? Answer: This is something the reader will have to determine on their own Africanus was a honest qualified author who did not alter the quotes to serve his own purpose. This is very likely considering what we know about Africanus. Africanus' methods were highly respected by his peers, he was often quoted by other authors, he had even chastised his friend and fellow Christian, Origen, for citing information from a scurrilous, unreliable source. It also must be noted that Thallus never said this eclipse did not happen, but instead was trying to actually come up with a scientific explanation to the Eclipse instead of assigning it to divine origins. Next is Mara bar Serapion. Mara bar Serapion of Syia pen this letter from prison to his son, "What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand...What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger. The Samians were overwhelmed by the sea. The Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good. He lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good. He lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good. He lived on in the teaching which He had given." Skeptic Interjection #1 How do we know that this passage is in reference to Jesus? 1) He was Jewish: Jesus was a Galilean Jew. 2) He was executed, Jesus was crucified, after the Jews appealed to Pilate to have Him crucified. 3) After His death Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, this occurred in 70 AD after Jesus' death. 4) The Jews were dispersed after His death. The Jews abandoned Judea after the Roman attack in 70 AD. He was a teacher, Jesus was rabbi or teacher, He lived on after death and the teachings of Jesus and His teachings were what founded the Christian faith, He was a wise King: Jesus was mocked by the Romans as the King of the Jews, the Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus referred to coming Messiah as King. Christians believed that Jesus was their Spiritual King, Jesus was born in the royal line of king David and of course he was Jewish. Now moving on to the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is an ancient record of Jewish history, laws and rabbinic teachings compiled throughout the century, though it does not accept the divinity of Jesus it confirms the belief that he was "hanged" an idiom for crucifixion on the eve of the Passover. It says, "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu or Jesus (some text say Yeshu, the Nazarene) was "hanged" (which means crucified) forty days before the execution. A herald went forth and cried, 'he is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of Passover." Skeptic Interjection #1: How can we know that the Talmud is documenting Jesus' existence and not only stating the rumor surrounding a myth? Answer: In the above excerpt the Talmud mentions Jesus' ability to perform miracles but tries to dismiss it as sorcery. If the writers were simply refuting myth they would most likely have dismissed the tale as a rumor not assign alternate theories to defend their position. Skeptic Interjection #2: How can we know that this passage is a reference to Jesus and not another individual with the name Yeshu? Answer: Though it is possible that this passage could refer to another individual, we know Jesus was killed during the Passover, we know He was "hanged," a Jewish idiom for "crucified," we know He was accused of practicing sorcery by the Pharisees for His miracles and He was ultimately arrested for the sin of blasphemy; enticing Israel to apostasy. Furthermore, there are other translations which read: "...Yeshu, the Nazarene," which give us even more reason to believe that this passage pertains to Jesus. There are many more accounts that refer to Jesus and His existence from the first and second century, and this of course does not include the many books and letters contained in the New Testament where even the critics agree, it was penned by at least five different authors. So, we are talking about different letters, from different times, claiming to be in some cases eyewitness accounts of the historical happenings of the events of this man's life! Some common questions are: Why is there no physical evidence or personal writings to verify Jesus' historicity? The Bible has been accused on several occasions of committing historical errors but has later been proven accurate through archaeological finds. For instance, the Old Testament mentions a tribe of people known as the Hittites. Skeptics pointed out that there was no such civilization in history, yet in the nineteenth century records of the Hittites were discovered within Assyrian ruins. Today we know a lot about the Hittites, such as their language, craftsmanship, geography, and Empire chronology. The New Testament mentions the Pool of Bethesda as a place where Jesus healed the paralytic. No such location was known to exist until it was discovered in Jerusalem as a place where the sick would gather to seek healing. Just because an artifact has not yet been recovered, does not mean none exists, in regards to, personal writings Socrates for example, exist only in the writings of his students there's not a single document still in existence that contains his original works. If we apply the same logic with Socrates, skeptics used to determine Jesus' historicity, we must assume Socrates was a figment of the imagination and his students, but if we are to accept Socrates as a historical figure based on four secondary accounts we must also accept Jesus as a historical figure whose life was documented by His disciples, historians and those who rejected His divine claims. In conclusion, a lot of evidence has been presented during this discussion to confirm Jesus Christ as a historical figure. We have viewed accounts taken from numerous authors of different theological backgrounds, and we've answered some common skeptic questions concerning Jesus' historicity. I purposely avoided using biblical evidence to support the existence of Jesus because that would be using the Bible to prove the Bible. Instead we focused this study on extra-biblical sources, however, early Christian historians and witnesses were unanimous in their accounts that several New Testament books were written by eyewitnesses of both Jesus and the apostolic ministries. If these authors were indeed eyewitnesses, we can believe that they also provide evidence to historicity of Jesus, some readers may be satisfied with such evidence, some may not. Whatever the case, I encourage you to examine all the facts for yourself before reaching your conclusion. Thank you.