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

reply to post by randyvs


Umm ok. I am honest as I can be. I am, so sorry, I cant grip this Bible school logic.

Discussing the bible is like thinking you know how an insane person thinks.

When the god of the bible creates Adam and Eve, Without knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, And then punishes them for eating from the tree of knowledge, It's kinda like finding a wild wolf, Putting a steak in front of it, And then telling it not to eat it. Then when it does, you torture it (and every other wolf) for eternity.


But you love them really.

reply to post by C21H30O2I

When the god of the bible creates Adam and Eve, Without knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, And then punishes them for eating from the tree of knowledge, It's kinda like finding a wild wolf, Putting a steak in front of it, And then telling it not to eat it. Then when it does, you torture it (and every other wolf) for eternity.

Alright, you do realise this is just your perception of what the
Bible is telling us happened right? And with limited text.

And yet you judge God for his actions that pertain to
a relationship (Adam and Eve) you don't know the first thing about.

Not to mention the advantage you hold over religious people
when you swoop into a thread. And bash the hell out of everything
they believe of this existence. Without first putting your own ideology
on the table to also be viewed under a microscope.

And blaming religion on God, won't fly either. Religion is with man
but God is in heaven. And he and also not everyone who believes
in him, by way of Christ, is religious. I my self am not religious.

reply to post by C21H30O2I


Do you actually believe this nonsense? So people have rights, but don't have the right to have ideas? Clearly not a lot of them floating around up there thats for sure...

ETA: This thread is just one more example of why this subject is completely pointless. We could sit around and have this discussion for thousands of years (hell, we HAVE had it for thousands of years) and nothing will change. People who hold on to one belief will refuse to acknowledge the other. How many of us have ever REALLY changed our minds about such a big topic? I know I have. But I doubt we'll be seeing any life changing swings in belief in this thread, or even a bit of compromise, so I'm done with it. Have fun chasing your own tails.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Well Seraph, if you aren't getting anything from the debates I
can understand that. But I learn a lot about the subject matter
and even more so about people. So that's where Randy is.

Not to mention the advantage you hold over religious people when you swoop into a thread. And bash the hell out of everything they believe of this existence. Without first putting your own ideology on the table to also be viewed under a microscope. And blaming religion on God, won't fly either. Religion is with man but God is in heaven. And he and also not everyone who believes in him, by way of Christ, is religious. I my self am not religious.

reply to post by randyvs


I don't swoop into a thread, (well maybe) I don't try to gain an advantage over anyone, I really try to gain an understanding. But, when it comes to the topic at hand it's simply impossible. It's not like I'm doing a drive by. My posts on the god-man are here for everyone to read. Those who read them, know my position.

I do fancy a good religious conversation time to time. As far as bashing them and their beliefs.. I don't think what I'm doing is even remotely close to what religious people and their beliefs have done to humans for the last 2000 years. And let me tell you, The religious can be pretty rank, with their dogma intertwined responses. That's not right....is it? Thought they had a set of rules to live by....

Do SiN!

DeadSeraph
reply to post by C21H30O2I

 

Do you actually believe this nonsense? So people have rights, but don't have the right to have ideas? Clearly not a lot of them floating around up there thats for sure...

ETA: This thread is just one more example of why this subject is completely pointless. We could sit around and have this discussion for thousands of years (hell, we HAVE had it for thousands of years) and nothing will change. People who hold on to one belief will refuse to acknowledge the other. How many of us have ever REALLY changed our minds about such a big topic? I know I have. But I doubt we'll be seeing any life changing swings in belief in this thread, or even a bit of compromise, so I'm done with it. Have fun chasing your own tails.

edit on 4-1-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

OMG I so agree with you DeadSeraph. I stated in a previous post that I will Discontinue my participation in this whole topic... I just couldn't resist.. hahah I think I'll take my own advice and exit this mind bending discussion.

noeltrotsky
In your race to prove modern evidence is more valuable than older evidence you clearly missed the point of my original post. That happens when your so smart and so right all the time.

Noel, friend, you missed my point early on, in the first post that you responded to and in the second.

By my lights physical EVIDENCE is valuable, be it old or new. May I ask you to read what I said again?

IMAGES that are created at the same time that an individual is supposed to be alive help to verify that they were actually alive.

RECORDED writings BY an individual or ABOUT an individual during the span of their life helps to prove that they were actually alive.

When someone said we don't know if Lincoln lived, those items of EVIDENCE were what I commented on.

If we want to provide EVIDENCE about Jesus, we need the same kind of things. Not photos, not papers ... but EVIDENCE.

That's my only point, and I agree it should be blatantly obvious.

ThePro
I don't want to be rude here or offend anyone, but is there any proof that god exists?

Only within the humans egotistical mind frame; "created in its own" (redacted image). The human creates the 'god' aspect/concept to place blame on something other than itself when 'things go negative or haywire'. The absolutum, the unbounded one is just a field of self actuating energy consciousness of 1s and 0s, organizing itself into smaller units of subsets of awareness. NO PROOF at all.

reply to post by randyvs


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

The seething hostility is palpable, virulent, very angry, very unwarrantedly angry in most respects, outrageous, petulant, myopic, narrow, rigid, RELIGIOUS in character, tone & manner; grossly hypocritical; thoroughly lacking in insight; arrogant, prissy, . . .

I can't recall a single example of increased understanding or insight on the other side in all my years on ATS.

They post baiting threads relentlessly. They don't do their research homework well at all. They don't seem to understand the basics of rational logic much at all while screaming that they are the only orthodox high priests and bishops of logic . . .

It's beyond disgusting . . . and pathetic.

Anyway--you have a U2U, BTW.

Gryphon66
Noel, friend, you missed my point early on, in the first post that you responded to and in the second.

I didn't miss your point. You find recent evidence more valuable than older evidence. I do as well, just like I stated. However I don't dismiss older evidence completely as you do, like the OP also seems to do.

Gryphon66
If we want to provide EVIDENCE about Jesus, we need the same kind of things. Not photos, not papers ... but EVIDENCE.

Evidence comes in innumerable ways...all with different value. If you actually read my first post you would know I didn't provide ANY evidence for Jesus being alive. I simply pointed out that the OP's standard of evidence for believing Jesus existed (first hand knowledge) if applied to everything in life would result in disbelief in 99% of what he heard.

I asked you to reread what I posted because your arguing 'strength of evidence' which is what everyone talking about 'did Jesus exist' always argues. It's an 'easy win' for people that don't believe in Jesus actual existence...thus people focus on it a lot. I wanted the OP to understand his standard of evidence choice and how a logical person would find that standard impossible to live by in today's world.

reply to post by Gryphon66

That's my only point, and I agree it should be blatantly obvious.

Would it really change anything for you ? if it were as blatent as
YOU YOU YOU, think it should be ? I don't believe so, because you
won't even consider the fact that it is blatently obvious to me.
And consider for one second that you really could be wrong?

People can only act as if they know enough about the universe
and existence and reality, enough to say there's no or not enough
proof. People who try to say that seriously, are spun ducky woo woo
IMO.

Because they don't even have the first clue about how much they
don't even know. Not to mention the fact that what they think they
know, is all just man made, patched up hand me down BSknowledge
as it is.

To NoelTrotsky: Looks like we've whittled down to personal failure-to-communicate it seems. Once again, I have no preference for new evidence or old just evidence. I don't dismiss the old evidence for Jesus' existence just because it's old, I just observe (again) that there's not any from his own time. Thereafter, yes. Were there Christians, yes. Do Christians imply a Christ, yes. But, because of the lack of evidence, there's no way to know. We do know that in the first and second centuries you couldn't throw a rock in Judea without hitting a Messiah. There are obviously reasons to believe based on religious faith. I said that at the beginning. Religious faith does not rely on evidence. I try to. Period. Be well.

To randyvs: Not sure what you're on about. I don't know where you got the idea that I made assumptions about you (we haven't interacted) but I can see YOU YOU YOU've made some big assumptions about me. Of course, I consider that I could be wrong ... I could be misreading evidence, I could be ignoring evidence, I could be arranging available evidence to meet a priori beliefs. I'm painfully aware of all those things, but, since this is not a self-help forum but a discussion board, I don't see the need to state that kind of individual information in my posts. We're about the facts here, right? Working together to find the best FACTS? Yes, as surely as a believer can say "I believe because I believe" I should be able to say "I don't believe because I don't see sufficient evidence" right? The difference is the believer probably won't move off their belief because, what's it based upon? Faith. Whereas, if the vault containing the unsold copies of "Journal of J. Christ" is cracked open tomorrow in Jerusalem during a sewer dig, I'd be the first to read it and say "Well, dang it, I was wrong."

How that can be considered "ducky woo woo" (whatever that means) is frankly beyond my reckoning. Further, for my part, I'll take the "patched up hand me down BSknowledge" that has created antibiotics and installed central heat and indoor plumbing over throwing bones and praying to the wind ANYDAY of the week. Different strokes, eh?

So it seems none of the current partakers of this thread want to take me up on my challenge...I wonder why that is exactly...?

Pythagoras - very little, bordering on zero, acceptable contemporaneous accounts...

Are we to simply conclude that Pythagoreanism and subsequently Neopythagoreanism and all the accounts of the Pythagoreans are therefore made up nonsense? Unfortunately it's not that easy to dismiss a claim friends....simply not that easy...

This was a challenge that none had accepted, although I wish someone, at the very least one, would have accepted...Not only does it demonstrate that we cannot simply dismiss claims that lack contemporaneous accounts...but it gives us all an opportunity to examine the evidence OBJECTIVELY. Many of us here have a bias when it comes to whether or not Jesus ever existed and whether or not the scriptures detailing his life and ministry can be proven trustworthy...However if we were to substitute Pythagoras in the place of Jesus, it's not so hard to view objectively...

The evidence in favor of Pythagoras being a real individual greatly outweighs the simple fact that what evidence we have comes from centuries later ...We know the religious movement called Pythagoreanism was a real movement. We have remarks by Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates, Diogenes Laërtius, Porphyry, and Iamblichus regarding biographical details....Granted these details were written well after the time of Pythagoras....but doubting those records does nothing in terms of proving that Pythagoras himself was not ever a living individual....

Here's the key:

Contemporary evidence/accounts - strongly supports
Any evidence/accounts - mildly supports
Lack of evidence/accounts - does not support

We're in a middle ground here. We have no contemporary evidence but we do have EVIDENCE. The evidence we do have must be critically examined and not simply dismissed based upon one's own DOUBT.

A2D

Actually, I meant to go back and give Pythagoras a go ... but got distracted for some reason.

Relying on an evidence-based system is best for a workaday reality. That's the beginning and end of it for me.

As to Pythagoras, my approach would be ... it's largely irrelevant whether he did or didn't exist as an individual. Why? Because the Pythagorean Theorem still works, whoever conceived it, wrote it down first, taught it, etc. Math doesn't depend on who says it or writes it down; authority or lack thereof doesn't change anything. I couldn't say that there are more than a few Greek scholars (or maybe a few neo-pagans) in the world who would even understand the context of Pythagoras' life or be concerned with his existence. The tenets of the Pythagorean "religion" as it was have mostly died out EXCEPT for the mathematical principles that remain true and useful I would guess that most folks, in their workaday reality, never considered the question ... because it doesn't make any difference.

Now whether Jesus Christ was exactly what he is purported to be is of ULTIMATE importance. Because Christianity, as opposed to mathematics, works on Faith. While we could argue that some of the small details aren't that important (like the manger or the withered fig-tree), if Jesus Christ was not the only begotten Son of God, if he didn't heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, die for our sins and then rise from the dead to rule at the right-hand of the Father God ... then the whole shooting match utterly collapses. If Christ wasn't Christ then Christianity is false because it doesn't work.

What is at stake in the two scenarios determines the importance of the evidence.

ADDED IN EDIT: Agree2Disagree you said:

Granted these details were written well after the time of Pythagoras....but doubting those records does nothing in terms of proving that Pythagoras himself was not ever a living individual....

Here's one of the crucial points of the whole matter in my mind. It is not that a lack of evidence proves that Jesus didn't exist ... it's that there isn't enough evidence to prove that he did exist in the way that Christianity requires. It's the old "extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence" vs. "The Bible says it; I believe it, and that settles it." It seems a small matter, but that's exactly the entirety of the problem in reconciling in any way the two differing perspectives, or at least, allow them to exist side-by-side (somewhat peaceably) .

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


If I was a professor at university I would know I all the respectable professora, who's work was great, that teached even centuries before me.

That's why Pythagoras was mentioned by those great men, that lived after him.
They were respectable and eminent men of their time. that we know many things about their lifes from historical facts.

They didn't write just one book of crazy claims (which other books did John, Mathew, Luke and Mark wrote?),

They did massive work of literature full of wisdom, useful for society, which inspired generations and generations.

They didn't believe Pythagoras was the son of God, or did miracles, or was the chosen messiah or he resurrected.

They didn't meet each other (at least not all of them), they weren't friends, they didn't have the same teachings. and didn't create together a religious organization. *

And most significant they didn't promise us he will return again, raise up the dead, and judge the sinners.

So yes we have much more credible evidence that Pythagoras was an actual person



* Ancient Pythagorianism wasn't a religion, it was a philosophy and it was based on mathematics, music (the sound frequency) , and astronomy. They were the bright examble of science (at their time) trying to explain the metaphysical.

Gryphon66
Once again, I have no preference for new evidence or old just evidence. I don't dismiss the old evidence for Jesus' existence just because it's old, I just observe (again) that there's not any from his own time. Thereafter, yes. Were there Christians, yes. Do Christians imply a Christ, yes. But, because of the lack of evidence, there's no way to know.

Again you talk about evidence and the lack of or strength of it...even after I clarified that I originally posted ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. Your a special person to completely ignore what others say and simply talk about the subject you choose.

OK then, lets dive into evidence since you are so focused on it. Start here cause its a well researched subject already. en.wikipedia.org...

Very quickly you will come to the statement,

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

Various references support that statement at the bottom of the article. Now you are welcome to deny the evidence of a historical Jesus based on your personal knowledge, however Ill go with the vast majority of scholars who spend their life researching the topic over your opinion.

You'll notice all discussion of miracles are expressly omitted from deciding if a historical Jesus actually walked the earth. That is a matter of religious belief and no level of evidence from the past is going to convince you.

reply to post by noeltrotsky


Wow. And you say I'm not reading. This has reached the realm of absurdity. Last try.

We're taking part in a larger conversation here. You're not the only one speaking. My comments have been directed both at the general conversation as well as at you. Don't take every word so personally.

Check the very post you're citing from. I stated unequivocally that Christians (which are documented and did clearly exist from the 1st century onward -- there's compelling evidence for the existence of Christians) imply a starting point somewhere, a Christ character. That's the argument your "majority of scholars" at Wikipedia are making as well. I agreed with that point several posts ago. Is that "Christ character" the same Lord and Savior Jesus of Nazereth the Son of God that sits at the center of Christianity? No. Even you are acknowleding that this Founder figure did nothing that Jesus is credited with no miracles, no virgin birth, no resurrection, etc, etc.

If it's not Jesus, it's not Jesus. We're reduced to tautology. FINIS.

Dr1Akula
They didn't write just one book of crazy claims (which other books did John, Mathew, Luke and Mark wrote?),

While it is disputed...John is argued to have written The Gospel of John, Epistles 1, 2 and 3, as well as the Book of Revelation.
Mathew and Luke are typically accepted to have made use of the Gospel of Mark, thus being dependent on that literary work. The writer of Luke is generally attributed to have also written Acts of the Apostles. There are hundreds and hundreds of Biblical books however and authorship of them is often murky and disputed.

There is no need to write multiple books to be proficient or considered intelligent anyway...but multiple books have been written by the authors you mentioned.

I think we are overlooking the obvious. As was mentioned by someone earlier, there were not a whole lot of 'scholars' back in the days of when Jesus was alive. The accounts that were found (which were dozens) were compiled into....the BIBLE.

The bible is a historic account of many things, including the birth, life and death of Jesus. Those books are just that...books. Written by many different men in different times. They were found and compiled. The research has already been done for you.