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

reply to post by texastig


All this is your belief and your religion, but does nothing to prove that your biblical beliefs are based in historic reality. Jesus, the Nazarene, if he existed, may have, in the company of followers been called a "messiah", but he was never called "Christ".

Messiah is a Jewish term, and there were many "holy men" who claimed to be messiahs, during that day. "Christ" is Koine Greek, a language that Jesus and his disciples did not speak. It's obviously a manufactured pagan title bestowed on Jesus years after his advent.

Why does the New Testament insist on calling Jesus "Christ" and not Messiah? Because the Roman Catholic Church hated and outlawed all things Jewish! The preferred to convert the pagan and demonize the Jews.

Your Jesus, who called Sumerian woman a "dog" would not have accepted the, already being used, pagan title of "Christ". As I have already shown and proven, "Christ" was being used by cultist as early as 500BC, and was still being used and people were being called "Christians" / "Chrestians" at that time, who were pagans, celebrating pagan mysteries and deities.

Jesus was never formally anointed, as was David, whose supposedly lineage and kingdom he claimed. Like I said, when we get to the New Testament and Christianity, everything that "was" becomes metaphoric and allegory. Jesus, and all Christians, are metaphorically anointed!

Secularists, disbelievers, relativists, atheists, your God, Science discovered in 2011 the marks on the Shroud of Turin were made by UV rays man cannot produce YET! This was the moment of Our Lord's Resurrection.

There's your outside of Scripture proof.

reply to post by colbe


So because you say something unfounded with no links or proof backing it up, all of a sudden Jesus existed and the resurrection is true? I mean it's not like we haven't already talked about the Shroud of Turin in this very thread already...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by colbe


Oh brother!

Carbon-dating studies by three different laboratories in the late 1980s, for example, suggested the shroud was made between A.D. 1260 and 1390, long after the time of Jesus. In 2005 another study asserted that the 1980s test had been based on a patch added in the Middle Ages and that the shroud is actually 1,300 to 3,000 years old.

The weave of the Tomb of the Shroud fabric, the new study says, casts further doubt on the Shroud of Turin as Jesus' burial cloth.

The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said.

Shroud of Turin Not Jesus

reply to post by wildtimes


WT, you know I love you! xoxox

The stories in the Bible are stories. They are stories

I bet you don't remember back a couple of summers ago or maybe it was this summer lol I don't remember.

I had thoughts hit me like a train and I expressed those thoughts in a thread somewhere on ATS. You were a part of such thread. Probably don't remember but you may.

Either way..

I was pondering about my tomato plant and hoping I could care for it the way it needed. Never before had I tried to raise one. I love them, but never had the time to take care of something else.

So.... I was thinking about the care that it would need and how I would know what it needed and then it hit me... it would tell me when it needed something. It would "express". I looked down at the deck and saw it needed care. How did I know this? It was an "expression" of the deck.

So.... then I began to recall how all things radiate... all things have a way of "expression".

A word... Logos, if you will, also expresses and so for me the Bible is this expression as well and understandably could be viewed as the "living word" as the living word (logos= christ=jesus) was expressing himself and therein this book is the reality of history... or his story ( our story). I relate it to all of our stories though. It shows the beginning and end = time. It shows above and below, how people thought of God back in those days, greed, war, and everything else human beings go through... as well as their relationship with others.

Its nothing more than an expression of stories. His-story can be summed up as ours.

Our ancient past is filled with stories. We find them everywhere.

As a believer of reincarnation I find these to be incarnates of Adam. How do I think I know this? The expressions that are made from these people and the people that knew them and wrote about said stories.

They are... Pre-man ( angel or spirit.. ), Adam, Enoch, Hermes, Melchizedek, Joseph, Joshua, Asaph, Jeshua, Zend, Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Mithra. These tell a story like that of Jesus and these people taught like him as well.

These above are expressions of the same spirit just as we come through many manifestations. There is a goal to be had... and we are reaching higher and higher to obtain said goal.

These "stories" tell a similar tale.

PlanetXisHERE
I don't really care about the person, I care about Jesus' message, and it was and is beautiful and profound, one path to enlightenment/salvation. Idol worship serves no one. Whether or not he lived the message ascribed to him is one to me that makes sense and seems to be the best way to live your life, but this of course is just my own opinion.

Namaste

I think one path to enlightenment/salvation is one of the worst ideas humanity has ever had. Especially attached to other parts that say "when I come back for revelations, you better be on that path or you're going to hell" The old testament has some pretty bad ideas for non believers too. I don't like this one path idea at all.

When we have one path, we start to see people as strays, and that just sucks. I think everyone has their own path, and they should be free to follow it with out stigmas or persecution. Christianity uses symbolism like the lambs and flocks, and I'm sure it sounds nice when you are a part of it, but it's a lot harder for me to appreciate, when I'm constantly feeling the teeth of that flock. Same with Islam and other religions that suggest there is one path. It really turns some people into assholes.

I think we'd be more happy, if everyone wasn't limited to one path. If people actually did some genuine soul searching we'd be better off. When we where handed a book and told it's the one way to live, we became spiritually lazy and stayed underdeveloped. Most people don't have any idea what their path is. Everyone looks to the book for truth, but very few find it in themselves.

texastig

Gryphon66
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."

I don't think you looked at Google close enough.
In his book, "Introduction in Research in English Literary History", C. Sanders, Associate Professor of Military History sets forth three tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism. These tests are:
1. Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
2. Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
3. External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).
It might be noteworthy to mention that Sanders is a professor of military history, not a theologian. He uses these three tests of reliability in his own study of historical military events.
You can see it here:
ia600508.us.archive.org...
Page 195

The Bible is reliable!!!!
www.probe.org...

I'm quoting what you stated COMPLETELY here it looks like you intentionally misrepresented what Professor Sanders stated in his text. At best you're mistakenly paraphrasing. At best.

Here's what Sanders said on page 195: "The EVIDENCE upon which we must rely in problems of chronology is of three kinds: bibliographical, external and internal. (emphasis mine).

His next sentence: "Bibliographical evidence is that which is INHERENT TO THE PHYSICAL MATERIAL of which the manuscript or book is composed." (emphasis mine)

You say that Professor Sanders says this: "Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)"

Sanders does NOT say that. I wonder is there is a For Shame emoticon?

What you've written and substituted is instead the definition of "bibliographical test" which is literally cankered throughout Christian apologetics sites.

No historian who is not at a Christian school uses the phrase "bibliographical test."

Perhaps you should read your "Google" a bit more carefully.

... as well as what you conceive to be your counter-evidence ... that is when you're not fabricating it completely.

Gryphon66
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.

You make a great point here. There are two issues at play, the first being the authentication and accuracy of the manuscripts used to compile the New Testament. The second being the truth of said manuscripts. The first issue is easily proved. There is no doubt that the manuscripts used to compile the NT are accurate and authentic. When all of them are taken into consideration, there is only about a 2% difference between all of them and those differences are minor and not really a factor when it comes to orthodox doctrine. Science and textual criticism has proven this... feel free to research for yourself. Now on to the second issue. Even if the Bible is an accurate representation of the original autographs, the question is... is it true? Well, that is where faith comes in. That is the whole point. Can you humble yourself enough to believe in the unseen God? Hebrews 11:1-3 states...

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

This is the Biblical definition of faith.

related:

Im of no religious background and will never be involved, BUT lately Ive been reading some Jesus stories and he actually seems like he was really cool. I mean, once you consider that most of it was based on other people before Jesus and some of it was astrological, some of what they describe him as sounds like he was a cool guy. Some of the stories that were left out of the bible about Jesus were pretty funny, like when he commanded the snake to suck the poison out of the boys leg lol. None of the people that wrote about the things he said were even alive within 100 years after the death. Supposedly there was an actual person named Issa among other names depending on the language and that was him, without anyone being alive that knew him and no photographs he may be a concoction story of older dieties , nonetheless sounded like to me he and his friends hated the rich and sounds like me. I hate it when religious people say , " well what god/jesus meant was" , I really get irritated with that. Even knowing for a fact that there was an actual person would be hard to prove.

reply to post by cathar


Ridiculous
2nd Line

wildtimes

So? You would begrudge others making their own journey??

Putting your words and notions into my fingers is not helpful . . . nor accurate.

I don't begrudge folks their journey. I'd prefer to make their troubles less serious and less frequent from what I've learned.

You found what works for you. That doesn't mean it will work for everyone, and you ought to know that, being as you are a "psychologist". Each to his own.

I've learned that there are a few universal principles that are true for everyone and true in all of reality.

We all have dignity, and we all are capable of navigating life in our unique way.

Yes. And God doesn't violate that--certainly not generally nor on the whole. Some folks He breaks through to with miraculous interventions and msgs out of the blue but not usually.


Big deal: you wandered those paths, and found them wanting. That doesn't mean everyone else will come out of it equally disenchanted.


Those who reject Almighty God and His Word have always, in my observations and experience, suffered far more, over the long haul, than others. Some consequences are delayed. And sometimes the negatives are hidden under a lot of bling and money but that truism is as true or more true than the sun will 'rise' tomorrow.

"Wrong, false" is a judgment call - did your wanderings give you authority to criticize those still wandering?

I think not.

You sound like you

1. think that I have no capacity to learn that a light switch in one direction results in light and in the opposite direction results in darkness.

2. think that I have no right nor capacity to share that learning with anyone else.

3. think that I have no capacity to learn that when one plants cacti, one can't harvest peaches from the plants.

4. think that I have no capacity to learn that when one plays with evil, ugly, dangerous 'fires,' one is highly likely to be seriously burned.

I disagree.

I hope that's clearer.

BTW, I thought you were one who wanted me to play nicer.

I guess it's not a 2 way street.

Hi,

This is a common misconception in our times. In the past, many people were educated in Ancient and Classical literature so this was not really a question. Nor is it really a question today among the small group of scholars (Christian or otherwise) dedicated to the topic. Many people question whether the bible portrays Jesus accurately, but few if any seriously argue that the man "Jesus" never lived. The fact is there are numerous extrabiblical references to the man "Jesus." Here are just a few, follow up with research to find the relevant passages:

Dead Sea Scrolls "Nag Hammadi Library"
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Deuterocanonical and Other Apocrypha
www.sacred-texts.com...

Annals of Tacitus
classics.mit.edu...

Josephus Antiquities
www.sacred-texts.com...

Babylonian Talmud
halakhah.com...

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas Life of Claudius
www.fordham.edu...

Thanks for your post - this is an interesting topic.

Honestly and humbly, I never really understand the full scope of this question. What is it you're actually seeking? Contemporary accounts? That's it? Seriously?

If so, your search is flawed from the very onset.

Contemporary accounts only lend credence, they do not prove nor disprove true reality.

Throughout the scope of human history there have been many significant figures for whom we find ZERO contemporary accounts. This does not speak directly to the true reality of the existence of said figures, but actually speaks directly towards our lack of keeping history. History can be erased, forgotten, misplaced, or simply overlooked. One simple thing such as a nice little campfire inside the Great Library at Alexandria can destroy thousands of years of history in brief moments...History is fragile and humans are complacent.

Here's my challenge that is open to ANY AND ALL takers....
Find JUST ONE acceptable contemporary account of Pythagoras....you know, of Pythagorean Theorem status....

A2D

The earliest extant manuscripts (the physical record) for any part of the New Testament is 2nd Century (100 to 199 CE). These early manuscripts (some of which are mere fragments of one page) are extraordinarily scarce as one might well expect. According to scholar Kurt Aland there are no more than two MS that can be dated to the 2nd century (fragments), six MS in the late 2nd-early 3rd (fragments), 28 or so in the mid 3rd (200-299 CE), and so on.

The earliest complete copy of the entire NT is the Codex Sinaiticus dating to the 4th century (300-399 CE).

Dr. Bart Ehrman, at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (who by the way is known as a staunch apologist for the actual existence of Jesus) is also very clear about the relative lack of quality and agreement of the various NT texts: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament ..." Dr. Ehrman has written many well-respected scholarly books on this subject, I encourage you to check out his website for additional info.

Really though, as Optimus indicated above, most Christian believers are perfectly fine with Faith serving as the sole verification for the Biblical texts. Given that, historical and textual evidence is largely moot.

On the other hand, Christians, you need to acknowledge or at least comprehend that not everyone shares in your Faith, that some of us look for the best factual evidence (often physical evidence) upon which to base the structure of our reality. But Christians, YOUR WAY IS NOT THE ONLY WAY FOR ALL OF US. If you want to explore these topics with us reasonably, keep that in mind. Also, keep in mind that many of our backgrounds include interactions with the Church and Christianity that are extremely unpleasant.

reply to post by windword


NOPE . . . no centuries after the fact nonsense.

www.dts.edu...

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

The notion that Jesus was not documented until centuries later is a lie from hell. That the oligarchy has so successfully sold the Kool-Aid to so many is not . . . thrilling.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Wrong again.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

www.dts.edu...

I think there are more than asserted above.

RE the oft uninformed noise about the Biblical manuscripts being changed horrifically over time etc. etc. etc.

. . .

www.provethebible.net...

These copies of Isaiah, written 1,000 years earlier than the previously oldest known copies have proven to be "word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. [emphasis mine] " 4 Great respect must therefore be given to the interim copyists. Diligently slaving for accuracy, they apparently achieved it:

Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word 'light' which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX [Septuagint] and IQ Is [first cave of Qumran, Isaiah scroll]. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage. 5

Today, much of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection remains with the many individual scholars to whom the various scrolls and fragments were assigned and named after. Some of the documents are owned by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and are on display in the Shrine of the Book Museum in West Jerusalem. These include one Isaiah scroll which was written between 150-100 BC, another around 50 BC, a commentary on Habakkuk penned between 100-50 BC, and two other documents. 6

RE THE NT:

There are over 6,000 early manuscript copies or portions of the Greek New Testament in existence today. When we include the Latin Vulgate and other early versions, we have over 24,000 early copies or portions of the New Testament (twice that many when including quotes by early church fathers). Some of these date only twenty to thirty years from the original autographs. By comparison, of works by Plato and Aristotle very few copies exist at all, and those were written 1,200 to 1,400 years after the autographs. 14 According to a former director of the British Museum,

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. 15

The Chester Beatty Papyrus II is the earliest piece of the New Testament known to exist. This contains most of Paul's letters copied circa AD 100.

The John Rylands Manuscript contains part of the Gospel of John copied in AD 130. It can be found in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England.

The Codex Vaticanus is a Greek copy of the entire Old Testament and most of the New Testament. Copied between the years 325 and 350 16, the Codex Vaticanus has resided in the Vatican's library since 1481 as one of the most trustworthy witnesses to the New Testament text. 17

The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in the Mt. Sinai Monastery in 1859 by Dr. Constantin Von Tischendorf. It was penned circa AD 375-400 and contains all of the New Testament and most of the Old Testament. It was presented to the Russian Czar and in 1933 was bought by England. Today, it is in the British Museum in London.

The Codex Washingtonianus may be found in the Smithsonian Institution, having been written about AD 450. It contains the complete four Gospels.

The Bodmer Papyri and Bodmer Papyri II are manuscripts dating from AD 150 to 200. These various parts of the New Testament, discovered in Egypt, now exist in the Bodmer Library of World Literature. Other significant collections include the Codex Alexandrinus which is an Egyptian text circa AD 450, the Codex Ephraemi, and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

There's NO OTHER ancient manuscripts with anything near that record of reliability.

And, RE the frequent hostility about the assaults of purported scholars . . .

www.provethebible.net...

Have critics discredited the early manuscripts?

"Even on the critics' own terms - historical fact - the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack."
--Time Magazine, December 30, 1974

Of course, Time is not known for being sympathetic toward authentic Christianity.

MORE

AD 100 & PRIOR texts of the NT:

www.netplaces.com...

www.netplaces.com...

Early Manuscriptsby Jeffery Donley, Ph.D.
Critics of the Bible claim that the New Testament books, especially the Gospels, were written centuries after the first century. They believe that legend dictated what the New Testament says. However, archaeologists may have discovered New Testament manuscripts dating back to the first century. These manuscripts are believed to be closer to their original autographs than any other literature in the ancient world.
.
The John Rylands Papyrus (P52)

A papyrus fragment was discovered in Egypt in 1920 that has the Scripture passages of John 18:31–33 and 37–38. This phenomenal find is called the John Rylands Papyrus and is designated as P52. It is currently located at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, and is dated at A.D. 100.
.
Scholars hold that the Gospel of John is one of the last of the New Testament books to be written. This Gospel dates somewhere in the early 90s of the first century. The dating of the John Rylands Papyrus at A.D. 100 opposes critical argument.
.
The Magdalen Papyrus (P64)

.
In 1901, three small fragments of a papyrus of the Gospel of Matthew were discovered in Luxor, Egypt, and sent to the Magdalen College Library in Oxford, England. Classified as Papyrus 64, these three fragments were examined by the famed German scholar Carsten Thiede in 1995, who dated the fragments between A.D. 30 and 70. He demonstrated that the Magdalen Papyrus was actually a part of two other fragments, Papyrus 67, a fragment of Matthew housed in Barcelona, and Papyrus 4, a nearly complete page from the Gospel of Luke, which is housed in Paris. In three places in the Magdalen fragments, the name Jesus is written as “KS,” an abbreviation of the Greek word Kyrios, or Lord.
.
Chester Beatty (P46)


. . . .
.
In 1988, scholar Young Kyu Kim studied P46 and determined that it was written before Domitian became Emperor in A.D. 81. Kim believed that the handwriting styles and linguistic changes from papyri of various known dates in the first century match those of P46.

.
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri and Papyri from Qumran Cave 7

.
These documents contain sayings of Jesus that have parallels in the Bible's four Gospels. They were discovered in Oxyrhynchus in Egypt and are dated at A.D. 150. Fragments of 1 Timothy 3:16–4:3 (7q4 1,2), James 1:23–24 (7q8), Mark 4:8 and Acts 27:38 (7q6 1,2), and Mark 6:52–53 (7q5) were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written before A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. That suggests that these passages from 1 Timothy, James, Mark, and Acts were all written before A.D. 70.

I guess we shall see if those pontificating about many centuries later nonsense will be the least bit influenced by the facts, or not.

For the last many years of my being on ATS, I've yet to observe such respect for facts on the part of the chronic naysayers about this topic hereon.