History itself validates the birth of Jesus. Most other major religions - besides that of Christianity - also recognize the birth and life of Jesus Christ. The difference among non-Christian religions is about who Jesus actually was. In other words, some say a teacher, some say a prophet, while Christianity says he is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity being God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. You can notice how this relates to John 3:16

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life."

Viper1 == Outside the Bible and the latter interpolation on the work of Josephus, there's no other source/s of the alleged birth of a man Jesus. So the answer to your question cannot be verified to be true. As the saying goes; "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence..

See Discuss Question on 'Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.'

Since Jesus undoubtedly existed as a real person, or we simply wouldn't be discussing this question, then the fact of His birth is a most logical concept to hold.

The stories of Jesus' birth are undoubtedly true, both in terms of their spiritual meaning 'the Word made flesh' and their actual happening in history. The former is a matter of faith, the latter can be open to verification since if Jesus actually walked this earth for over thirty years and his disciples for more, there will be signs of this.

Evidence which repeatedly verifies other aspects of the New Testament witness, adds to the picture of a reliable and historical book, in much the same way that the discovery of the true size of Herod's harbor of Caesaria verified Josephus' claim that it was as large as the Athenian harbor at Piraeus. Josephus had been thought to be in error and unreliable because the true size of Herod's harbor lay hidden underwater, its discovery added to his credibility in much the same way as evidence in numerous areas adds to the credibility of the Biblical narratives.

Apart from Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon (as quoted by Africanus), Jewish writings and the Early Apostolic Fathers all verify key Bible events, as well as numerous archaeological discoveries, all provide external verification of Biblical reliability.

Luke, in particular, who has more on the early events in Jesus' life has been found to be reliable and exact in his historical statements. This is the conclusion reached and the consensus by both conservative and liberal scholars today, in contrast to the skepticism of the nineteenth century. His references to thirty two countries, fifty four cities, and nine islands were examined and not a single mistake was found. It is thus likely that he was accurate in relation to the details he provides about Jesus' birth as well. == === === "With these four brief biographies, the Four Gospels, Christianity must stand or fall. These four documents, it is admitted, contain practically all the evidence which can be adduced in proof of the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ." The Four Gospels, it is claimed, were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, two of them apostles, and two companions of the apostles of Christ. === === Frederick W. Farrar (1831 - 1903) though devout in his faith, lived in an era pre-dating many of the archaeological discoveries which have confirmed numerous Biblical details in the twentieth century, until this day. Thus, the quote above, taken from the link, was certainly accurate then. This of course did not mean that the events of Jesus birth were not true, simply that the evidence had not been found.

Many other details supporting ultra-skeptical views, are no longer relevant as actual evidence refutes them, and supports the Bible, including the truth of the accounts of Jesus' birth. ---- ==

Another proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not a historical character is the silence of the writers who lived during and immediately following the time he is said to have existed. That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written. A Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed -- have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning him. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles, we find no mention of him.

Tacitus, being a Roman Historian, was chiefly interested in the affairs of Politics and war. It is not surprising that he hardly mentioned Jesus or the Christians. Jesus after all, was born in an obscure and rather troublesome province, and was born in the insignificant town of Bethlehem and lived in the insignificant and small town of Nazareth in his early days. The fact that there is any mention of this at all by Tacitus indicates that the Christians had grown to significant enough numbers to arouse his interest as a historian of Roman affairs.

Regarding Josephus' Testimonium: Over time scholarly opinion tends to change as more intense study is done. Initially, the testimonium was regarded as completely genuine, then completely false. At present scholars who have studied it are generally agreed that it is mostly genuine, but with some Christian additions.

Similar to the statement that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', great care needs to be taken with arguments from silence. Even if the writers outside the Bible were completely silent on the matter, which they clearly are not, then their complete silence would simply prove that they were completely silent and nothing more.

---- == " Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist. From the beginning to the end of this Christ's earthly career he is represented by his alleged biographers as a supernatural being endowed with superhuman powers. He is conceived without a natural father: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When, as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. i, 18)." === === === === While the accounts of Jesus' birth certainly contain elements which offend the presupposition of naturalism, which rules out the miraculous, they also contain elements which are straightforward from any viewpoint. The persons who wrote the accounts of Jesus' birth in the New Testament, while they did not share the anti-supernatural presupposition of some, certainly did not embellish the accounts or exaggerate for effect but attempted to give the facts as they knew them.

In addition to this, since these authors faced the possibility in their own day of major opponents to their accounts and faith, who were only too willing to discredit them, they had to be extremely careful in what they wrote. Many persons would have been alive who could have testified against them and produced contrary evidence if there was any. Not one single scrap of contemporary contrary evidence has ever been produced, which is strange, since if the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' birth did not occur then there would have been many to testify to that fact and many quite eager to do so.

It also seems arbitrary to accept certain basic things as correct yet to reject others on the basis of a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. If the authors can be correct in some things, why not the other. Simply because I personally haven't seen or experienced something does not give me the right to say it is impossible, unless I have a reliable reference point on which to check it. Apparently in the library of the Louvre in Paris there are apparently 3.5 miles of shelving containing obsolete science books. In 1861 the French academy of science published a list of some 51 so-called scientific facts which apparently disproved the Bible. These are all today not acceptable to modern science.

Man's theories change and are proven false or are modified as new discoveries are made. The man made theory of naturalism, set up by man, who is fallible and limited cannot be the final arbiter against the word of an all-wise, all-knowing God who has spoken with clarity and accuracy about the birth of His eternal Son.

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company