Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

Dr1Akula
. . .
But the gospell writers, his sollowers [followers] where [were] worshiping Jesus as a God, They believed in him and they wrote their stories about him. that's it.

NOPE. You are significantly WRONG.

At the Crucifixion, they failed to believe in Him sufficiently to stand with Him.

After the Crucifixion, they were dispirited and despondent sufficiently to abandon the whole thing and go back to their fishing. They had hoped he'd take military and political control and usher in the Kingdom of God overtly, removing the Roman oppressors. In spite of His teaching otherwise . . . In spite of His articulating that His first coming was destined to be as the Suffering Servant Messiah, they still clung to the notion that He would rescue Israel from the Romans and set up the eternal overt Kingdom of God.

When He clearly failed to do that and was killed on a cruel cross--in spite of His predicting such, they were still wholesale dispirited, discouraged, mystified, UNBELIEVING.

The AUTHENTIC RESURRECTION changed everything. MORE THAN 500 citizens SAW Jesus running around loose after the Resurrection. Many touched him, watched him eat and drink over a 40 day period. There's NO other precedent remotely close to THAT HISTORICAL record.

Blather about other pretend deities modeling the basics of Christ's earthly life is blather from drinking the Kool-Aid.

They were simple people of that time who didn't even knew how to write in their own language, and suddenly they start writing in greek. [Greek]
. . .

Oh, how sweet. Brazen Biases Blazingly showing yet again. Sigh. How brilliant of you to arbitrarily decide that they were toooooo ignorant and uneducated to know how to read or write. What an impressive, researched perspective. /sarc

Again, unmitigated nonsense. The MD Luke was quite qualified to write. John didn't have any trouble writing on his own. Certainly the PhD Paul didn't have any trouble writing. Even Peter managed some letters whether by dictating or writing himself. Matthew, a tax collector, certainly knew how to read and write. I don't recall about Mark.

.

Mon1k3r
I would guess that there isn't a lot of historical record of the guy because when he was alive, he really wasn't all that popular. He didn't become popular until his identity, his life story, and his message was hijacked and twisted.

There's more info for Christ than Pontius Pilate.

Mon1k3r
There were a great many who didn't like Jesus for what he was saying because he was threatening the livelihood of the elite clergy of the time, who were railroaded and/or coerced with money and property to make things the way they would have it by the Romans.

Love is a threat to all who are greedy, manipulative, and selfish.

I agree

MamaJ


Really? lol Maybe you should read my posts because then you would see this here above is something I realize.

I actually liked your way of thinking (even though I disagree) and I liked the post and gave it a star

Again, Where did I say this above? Please re read my postS.

I was not responding to you the rest of my post was just stating my opinion

-It is nature worhip, the gods are not persons or beings, they never existed as persons but they exist as Gods and
They are all real. And thats coming from an atheist


-Oh... never mind. Carry on with your logic.

That quote doesn't make justice to what I said

I meant, since the ancients polytheists -(I am not using the word pagan cause that was a term of disgrace christians used to refer to the old religions which they hated so much)-, accepted as Gods the aspects (elements if you like) of nature and human behaviour, then their Gods are totally real!
They didn't believe in holy ghosts, one and ultimate powerfull being outside our kosmos, and saviours from sins
they worshiped nature and thats totally acceptable even for an atheist like me (others might disagree).
You see a sun worshiper can prove his god is real.

reply to post by Scope and a Beam


The proof is in the hundreds, if not thousands, of eye witness accounts. These accounts were recorded and copied thousands of times, over more than a thousand years. These manuscripts, which would become the New Testament, were spread out over such a large area that collusion and corruption of said manuscripts was impossible. Having said that, I know that to the person who does not believe, what I have said is not proof, and I suppose that you would be right... scientifically speaking. Spiritually speaking, the only way to prove that Jesus Christ is real is to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and accept Him into your life... believe me you will see proof of Him every day, in how He transforms lives. You will feel that hole in your spirit has been filled. What is your favorite beverage? Let's say that your favorite beverage is orange juice. You love orange juice because it tastes so good, but there is absolutely no way for you to prove that to me. The only way for you to prove that orange juice tastes good is for me to believe you enough to take a sip. You can describe it all you want, but it will all be in vain unless I take a sip and see that it does indeed taste good.

Romans 1, 18-21 (NKJV)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This passage is saying that every human being has knowledge of God in their consciousness, because we are created in His image. To say that we are created in His image is not speaking to our physical appearance, but to our spiritual creation. Just as God is a triune being... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are triune beings... body, spirit, and soul. Our body and soul are alive, but unless you have accepted Christ as your savior your spirit is dead. Upon accepting Christ your spirit is "quickened", or brought to life, by the Holy Spirit. If your spirit is dead then there is no way for you to understand the things of God. The only way to understand the things of God is to have faith in His Word and accept His truth, and the Holy Spirit will then guide you to ALL truth.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I have this book in my room that tells me about this guy who can fly, is indestructible, shoot heat beams out of his eyes, is super fast, is an alien, and is completely selfless in trying to save mankind. There is no evidence to suggest that he doesn't exist, therefore if I believe in him enough then he MUST be true.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Yea but all the evidence of the points you are trying to make come from the new testament, and it authenticity is debatable.
You see me and my friends can write a book about a messiah who did miracles and present ourselfs as whatever we want!
but our book itself doesn't prove anything.
Can you state some sources beside the bible for what you are saying?

MamaJ
Most scholars agree he was a real person who indeed lived in the era that is described in the Bible and Talmud.

There are other writings that have been found outside the Bible. Some writings actually portray him as one who practiced witchcraft and or sorcery. Others portray him just as his disciples did.

The many accounts that are in the Bible have a theme and this theme is recalled by the authors memory which may or not reflect exactly the same from author to author but they do hold a theme. He was born of a woman, taught love and compassion, had disciples, did great works, was baptized by John and died.

His-story accounts do not deny he is "real". Everything else though, per scholars, is debatable.

Imagine if he were here today. He would probably cause a massive revolt and if he did any kind of magic, we would kill him.

No scholars worth their salt, save for Christian scholars with an agenda, agree that he ever existed. At all. Anywhere.

The "bibliographical test" is a concept created for Christian apologetics by Christian apologists. The only "historians" who use the "bibliographical test" are those who intend to make their rationalizations sound formal or more academic. Use your favorite search engine to find references for the "bibliographical test" and you will find that out of first 100 or so hits, 100 are at Christian apologetics sites -- "for believers by believers."

Further, to claim that a document is authentic DOES NOT PROVE that the contents or claims of the document are true. If so, please be ready to contend with the actual existence of multiple gods, goddesses, demigods, deva, sprites, goblins, elementals, etc.

Here's a possibility: why claim that something must be objectively or historically true to justify your own belief? If you have evidence, or traditions, or just intuitions that Something is true ... why worry? Why argue? All too often the answer is because it's not enough to believe for oneself, others must be made to see the "truth" of the belief as well, or, that belief is going to be used to determine laws, regulations, policies and procedures for others ... and that's where my issue arises.

MamaJ

Will you show me quotes of the gospel writers calling him God.

I would say they thought of him as all others did who foretold of his coming. King, Priest, Lord, Anointed one, Son of God, Son of Man, Christ..... Jesus did not equate himself with God.

Since I was raised as christian by fundamentalists I know that Church (at least the orthodox one) accepts
the Holy three; Father, Son and Holy spirit, but anyway...
Thinking of him as the son God still proves my point that they were biased and thus their writings are not reliable.

MamaJ
And... if you go back and re read what I said about Logos and how it could be another term ( modern to those days) as Christ, you may see where I'm coming from. Maybe not... as we are seeing things different per our perspective and research.

The "word" made in the flesh/reality = Christ = Logos.

I liked your thinking, although it might sound a bit heretic to christians. Either you accept Him as an idea, a philosophy, or as an actual person. In my oppinion these two can't come together.

reply to post by texastig

Christ means "anointed" one.

"Anointed" means smeared with oil. Except for some random woman performing an erotic massage with expensive perfume, her hair and her tears on Jesus' feet, to the horror of his disciples, Jesus was never officially anointed by anyone or through any ritual.

For example:

"And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

And he called the name of that place Bethel" Genesis 28:18

"And you shall offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and you shall cleanse the altar, when you have made an atonement for it, and you shall anoint it, to sanctify it" Exodus 29:36

"And Samuel took a little vial of oil and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said: Behold, the Lord hath anointed thee to be prince over his inheritance, and thou shalt deliver his people out of the hands of their enemies, that are round about them. And this shall be a sign unto thee, that God hath anointed thee to be prince." 1 Samuel 10:1

"Now the Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his sons.
Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward"
1 Samuel 16 1, 13

Only Christians think something that is not, is! Suddenly, in the New Testament, anointing becomes a metaphor, or allegorical.

For example:

"You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even your God, has ANOINTED YOU with the oil of gladness above your fellows" Hebrews 1:9

Now, in the New Testament, Christians are anointed with "oily emotion"!

So, Jesus was NOT anointed, yet we are to believe that this holy man assumed the title of "Anointed One" without argument? If that is the case, then Jesus was an opportunist fraud, and his followers were snake oil salesmen. (pun intended)

reply to post by BO XIAN


Have you any actual grasp of how unfriendly, condescending, and rude you sound? You may be old, pops, but that doesn't automatically make you "right." I'm offended by your demeanor, and you aren't even talking to me (in this thread, at least, for which I am grateful).

Just asking - do you intend to be so, erm, rabid? Hostile? Self-righteous and superior?

Quite distasteful. Especially as it's coming from someone like you who is a Pentecostal/Charismatic who thinks Lee Strobel is a genius of some kind. ...
did you ever read Karen Armstrong's book?

reply to post by Dr1Akula


Yes I can. And, have set aside some ref's to do so.

I'm not yet emotionally motivated to do so. I just buried my Dad. This issue and thread is not a super high priority, at the moment.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Yes I can. And, have set aside some ref's to do so.

Lee Strobel doesn't count - he just parrots William Lane Craig (who, remarkably, reminded me of you when I listened to his debate with Sam Harris).

In any case, sorry for your loss.
My dad died 3 years, 5 months ago yesterday.

History does record in numerous places, the existence of groups that identified as "Christian" and were known as a Jewish sect. That is the logical basis for the claims of scholars in the field that there was a "person named Jesus and he was called 'Christ'."

While the earliest physical evidence for the texts of the New Testament is 125 CE (as far as I can reliably find). (Source) the great majority of textual copies date to the 10th Century and later (The New Testament: An Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, Bart Ehrman p. 449).

That offers a bit of perspective to the statement that "there are more copies of the New Testament than any other ancient text." After Christianity became more of a political movement than a religious one (around 300 CE), one can understand why the "constituting documents" of that movement were copied and recopied.

BO XIAN
reply to post by Dr1Akula

 

Yes I can. And, have set aside some ref's to do so.

I'm not yet emotionally motivated to do so. I just buried my Dad. This issue and thread is not a super high priority, at the moment.

My sincere condolences in your grief. I lost my dad in 2005.

reply to post by wildtimes


I'm aware that my fierce style can come across as you describe to a number of folks.

Given the tones and attitudes of those I'm responding to . . . I doubt I'll alter it much. They are not inclined to hear regardless but at least I'm writing more in the same 'language/attitude group' as it were. LOL. They love to dish it out and rarely seem to handle taking it well at all.

It's not really my desire to insult persons, per se. I'm happy to insult absurd notions, beliefs, hypotheses.

Most folks fail to notice the distinction.

When I write all sweetness and light . . . it seems to come across greatly MORE like a p*ssing in the wind effort in futility.

But mostly . . . it's just a style, habit thing that when I'm writing defending my beliefs against pugnaciously fierce hostilities on the other side, I tend to write very forcefully with a fair amount of satire and feistiness.

When I'm responding to gracious folks, I tend to write more graciously.

However, folks are most welcome to scroll on by without reading my blather.

Those asserting all manner of hostile nonsense against my Savior and Lord are the MOST insulting, hostile, obnoxious, absurd, unfounded etc. blatherers I've ever ran across. And that's after 30 years on the net and countless late night hours at university arguing such things.

No, I didn't read Karen's book. IIRC, I looked into it and didn't find it worth the bother.
.

reply to post by BO XIAN

The AUTHENTIC RESURRECTION changed everything. MORE THAN 500 citizens SAW Jesus running around loose after the Resurrection.

According to one person!

Many touched him, watched him eat and drink over a 40 day period. There's NO other precedent remotely close to THAT HISTORICAL record.

If he was being touched, and he was eating and drinking and walking about, he wasn't dead, nor had he been dead. He survived the ordeal.

According the testimony, Jesus didn't die on the cross at all, but survived the ordeal, and had the scars to prove it, and an appetite to boot!.

"And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.…

While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"…"

"The AUTHENTIC RESURRECTION" was a hoax!

reply to post by wildtimes


Lee cites a list of quality folks . . . most with direct face to face interviews.

I think his investigative reporter perspective and skills were put to good use . . . for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Sorry for your loss of your Dad, too. Regardless of how well one has prepared . . . it's still a big hole in one's life. At least in my case.

reply to post by MrPlow


That's wholesale upside down WRONG.

However that attitude and uninformed starkly arbitrary statement so oft repeated hereon has worn old long ago.

Those of us on my side of the issues are not about to begin to change anyone's mind hereon.

Darkened minds are not very open to enlightenment. Nor do they seem to WANT to be.

This whole baiting exercise is interminably dreary.

Junk for which there is little to NO justifiable evidence is spewed as absolute truth.

God alone can change hearts and understandings. And He has better things to do than to force anyone of a bad-faith attitude to believe even the truth.

The sadder fact is that the same attitudes so abundantly present on these threads are akin to the ones crying 2,000 years ago "CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!"

And some of the same people will be just as eager in coming years to say "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! RID THE PLANET OF THE IDIOT CHRISTIANS! CLEANSE THE EARTH OF THEM! TO THE GUILLOTINES WITH THEM!"

No surprise there.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Given the tones and attitudes of those I'm responding to . . . I doubt I'll alter it much. They are not inclined to hear regardless but at least I'm writing more in the same 'language/attitude group' as it were. LOL. They love to dish it out and rarely seem to handle taking it well at all.

I've read this whole thread - and I don't see rude, condescending animosity from them with what you call a "fierce" style.
What I see (in your posts) is a Christian Apologetic who seems to be so entrenched in his thinking that he vilifies ANYONE who thinks critically about these issues.

I don't see them "dishing out" insults and slinging sarcastic adjectives around.

Being nasty doesn't win friends or influence people, Bo, and you know that. It's the 'fierce' method that is turning people away from Christianity.

But, carry on. As an agnostic, I have no dog in this fight - just reading through members' posts...
and as far as I can tell, the members who are discussing the fallibility of the Bible are being quite civil.

Again, sorry about your Dad. Yes, it's a major tidal wave of emotion that one cannot adequately prepare for. I wish you a reasonably peaceful transition into the 'new normal' of having Dad gone.

Sincerely.