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

Good reading (but so is the cat in the hat) Funny tho, Neither Mark or Paul, or any of the other writers of the New Testament stories, know of Jesus birth to a virgin; in fact, they show no awareness of his nativity at all. A psychedelic induced vision trip? Though, collectively all are earlier writers than Matthew and Luke, they evidently know least about his birth. Perhaps even more surprising, the authors of John, though certainly aware of the birth tales presented by Matthew and Luke, They passed over those stories as unworthy of a mention in their own gospel.

But for all that, the pretty tale of miraculous birth and fulfillment of ancient prophecy has delighted and enthused generations of Christians who, with simple faith, are able to weather the harsh storm of rationality and objectivity with a halfwit's beaming smile.

But hey, it's Christmas.

conspiracytheoristIAM
reply to post by Scope and a Beam

 

Last night we celebrated New Years eve and it's A.D. 2014. Just go to Wikipedia and look up A.D., B.C., C.E. and B.C.E.......all referring to the " the year of our lord "(Jesus ). I think that will convince you that Jesus is accepted and was written about in a historical sense.

Really?? It will?? The calendar we use today is only less than 500 years old.

The Gregorian calendar is today's internationally accepted civil calendar and is also known as the "Western calendar" or "Christian calendar". It was named after the man who first introduced it in February 1582: Pope Gregory XIII.

Calendar features
The calendar is strictly a solar calendar based on a 365-day common year divided into 12 months of irregular lengths. Each month consists of either 30 or 31 days with 1 month consisting of 28 days during the common year. A Leap Year usually occurs every 4 years which adds an extra day to make the second month of February 29 days long rather than 28 days.

Realigned with the equinox
The Gregorian calendar reformed the Julian calendar because the Julian calendar introduced an error of 1 day every 128 years. The introduction of the Gregorian calendar allowed for the realignment with the equinox, however a number of days had to be dropped when the change was made.

www.timeanddate.com...

"Most scholars" agree that Jesus lived; but then again, most scholars toe the party line. After all, saying that Jesus never existed was up until recent times, not only unthinkable, but punishable by some of the most severe acts that could be dreamed up by religious authorities and the other nice christians who wanted to be sure you kept your mouth shut about such things, heresy being punishable by death. So while you're glorifying what the guy supposedly said, think back on what happened to those who said he didn't say it.

The problem is, 'most scholars' who are investigating Jesus came to the subject out of a fervent religiosity, not rational thought. Can you imagine spending most of your time reading about the Easter Bunny, or Zeus, or Thoth(arguably one of the more fascinating characters in recorded 'history')? Discussing animatedly about what was said, and coming up with excuses on why no one of the time managed to follow the individual around and write down all the quotes (which then somehow spring out centuries later as beautiful prose and wise sayings...). No quotes written down at the time equals 'never said'.

As I stated in another thread, we have not only a concurrent historical record of the Egyptian Pharoahs dating back an additional 2000 years BC but statues of them. We know what Akhenaton looked like, we have coins struck that showed us Cleopatra's profile; we know all about the Caesars and no one is here asking if they existed. We know the exact date Vesuvius blew up and buried Pompeii. Same era, so the 'not many historians at the time' is ridiculous. If he caused enough of a stir to be tried by Pontius Pilate and put to death, you would think there would be other verification available and there is not, except in the 'faith-based' community, which is the same thing as wishful thinking.

If the man existed and it's a very big if, all the quotes ascribed to him spring out of the imagination of dozens of other people and have been translated into several languages before they got to English; the date of birth, start of 'missionary' work, and death are a matter of heated contention, even among believers. Even that is ridiculous; we don't to my knowledge know the exact date of birth of Augustus Caesar, or Julius; it's not important, maybe because no unusual star in the East and a pretty story accompany it, and there's not much issue with virgin births, either.

But the most stark proof that Jesus never existed? The spectacularly hypocritical way that 'christians' don't bother to follow the teachings. Oh, individuals might, once in a while. But in the aggregate, the teachings have failed miserably. One only needs to look at all the wars christians have participated in to prove it. All of our US presidents have espoused a belief in god (try to get elected without that); then they happily order military strikes against innocent populations (whoops, collateral damage, sorry about that). How are they christian, then, pray tell? One wonders if a rational atheist president would kill so much.

All religions started out as a way to explain the unexplainable and unfathomable; sicknesses, and lightning, and those lights in the sky. They remain with us today as a testament to the glories of storytelling and fantasy. That this belief system is holding society back as a whole has never been more obvious. People in some countries are brought up to think they will get into their version of heaven complete with lots of virgins to ravage if they kill themselves and take other people with them, all to the glory of their god. Using a god to justify killing and more killing, and meanwhile back home, people in Western societies use the term 'for god and country' to justify their own killing sprees. Our military actually hires and pays chaplains to make believers feel better about not only their missions, but the devastating injuries they themselves suffer in the process.

If you're wondering why atheists are so angry or vehement, this is why. We live surrounded by crazy people, churches everywhere, and no one seems to notice the problem with that, or the price we're all paying. We'll never become a true civilization until all religions go into the dustbin of history.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I've seen that documentary, but it has few confirmable facts (like shrines do exist as do buildings) and a lot of oral traditions.

There are also several different places in India that claim to be his birthplace as well as his burial site.

The only real evidence of a biblical character is Pontious Pilate - where a stone recently found suggests that he was a real person. Compared to Egyptian archaeology which had writings over every wall, biblical archaeology is notoriously harder. How many British people (another Roman outpost) do we have evidence for in Roman times - we only have the writings of Tacitus.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Thank you - I am watching it now.

Cuz the Bible is a real source of his existence?

reply to post by butcherguy

Flavius Josephus aka Josef ben Mathitjahu is not quite trusted source. He was a jewish who turned into favour of Roman empire Vespasian and Titus Flavious ( Josephus was "adopted" to family and had a right to use Flavius ) Josephus was considered to be a traitor to jewish people.

At the time of Flavius empire, roman soldiers did everything to destroy any documents of Jesus who was a rebellious like in some texts of dead sea scrolls, instead they cherished the idea of christianity where people are pacifist and give the Rome it´s share of money and obenience.

Josephus only goal was to serve Roman empire and make it more powerful.

Scope and a Beam
Hi,

I don't mean to enrage anyone here, but there seems to me that there's no solid proof that Jesus actually existed.

Irrelevant.

Of course the bible says he did, but I don't trust the bible as it is not a first-hand account and has been, in my opinion, warped over the years by the Church to fit its own personal agenda, and not that of the people following it.

Then go beyond the Bible. Learn the ways of comparativism Luke. Comparative religion, comparative mythology, comparative mysticism. Together they show that the archetypes of the collective unconscious are universal common denominators throughout world religion and myth. Together they show the perennial philosophy. Together they penetrate the warping of cultural and temporal inflection and reveal an exegesis that transcends borders. That which some call the Christ goes by many names in world religion and myth. The pattern is there. It actually exists. Like footprints of God. Just my 2 cents.

"If you can't see God in all, you can't see God at all." -Siri Singh Sahib

C21H30O2I
Good reading (but so is the cat in the hat) Funny tho, Neither Mark or Paul, or any of the other writers of the New Testament stories, know of Jesus birth to a virgin; in fact, they show no awareness of his nativity at all. A psychedelic induced vision trip? Though, collectively all are earlier writers than Matthew and Luke, they evidently know least about his birth. Perhaps even more surprising, the authors of John, though certainly aware of the birth tales presented by Matthew and Luke, They passed over those stories as unworthy of a mention in their own gospel.

But for all that, the pretty tale of miraculous birth and fulfillment of ancient prophecy has delighted and enthused generations of Christians who, with simple faith, are able to weather the harsh storm of rationality and objectivity with a halfwit's beaming smile.

But hey, it's Christmas.

Joseph impregnated his out-of-wedlock woman. Being ashamed of this, they invented the "divine" impregnation.

Maybe Mark or Paul saw through this, which is why they didn't include it. Rolling their eyes like "yeah right," while the couple is going on about God impregnating her.

Based upon your OP, though, I wanted to ask if you've read "The Age of Reason?" Paine touches on a lot of the discrepancies as you, and calls into question many of the same things. His logic is, at times, faulty, but on the whole he is spot on. If you haven't, check it out.

reply to post by Scope and a Beam



Its just as well that there isn't any or very, very little outside proof that Jesus ever existed. The proof, to folks that can see, is in what was written about Him.

Jesus was also a popular name back then
like Bob or the last name Smith,

I think jesus was more of a character in a story told
and written in a fictional book.
Someone that did good things, and thus the story was embellished a bit.
could be why he faded away, only to be kept alive in church stories for those
that required guidance.

Let's not forget that there are Roman historical figures whose only solid proof of existence is what was written about them by historians at second or third hand remove, but no one questions their existence.

Too little focus is given to the new facts we now know about the Essenes who lived at Quoram , a monastery 12 miles outside of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth is likely to have been part of that group up to his outreach ministry at age 33. The Essenes studied other religions, where focused on the afterlife and charity and on a life of piety and service. Their writings are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947.

They were studied for 25 years with little information released during that time with the Catholic Church having much control of that process of Scroll translation. Read the writings of John Allegro, the only team member not working for the Church, who broke with them and published very controversial claims. Including claims that the central ritual of the Christian Church, Communion, (the ritual eating of the son of God as an act of redemption) actually came from Summeria and is 2,500 to 3,000 years old already by the time of Christ.

The Essenes, like other monastic orders through the ages, collected and studied ancient writings and had an extensive library, among the largest of the ruined buildings excavated at Quarom. The fact that no Essene connection is made to Jesus I find to be typical of the history of the church of surpressing new ideas. Just as the realization that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system, it took generations for the church to admit that and not prosecute scholars who challenged the status qou, perhaps that happened to Allegro as it did to Galilelo. There are connections between the Essene beliefs and Christianity, but they are not identical. Considering Jesus as part of alternative Jewish sect that saw this life as a preparation for the next, were not interested in wealth and materialism, and a devotion to God as the purpose of life all fit well with what reportedly Jesus spoke about.

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

beautifully said

reply to post by Logarock

Logarock
reply to post by Scope and a Beam

 

Its just as well that there isn't any or very, very little outside proof that Jesus ever existed. The proof, to folks that can see, is in what was written about Him.

Watch this documentary before you make up your mind.


It is very interesting indeed.
Thanks again to Chamberf=6.

reply to post by Liquesence


It's plausible they just left it out.... I would. I have read through T. Paine's , the age of reason and I find it to be good reading. I enjoy reading his stuff! I agree with a lot of what he said.

However, I am an Atheist, I don't subscribe to a single GOD deal or any, obviously, for that matter. I do find faults with organized religion authority. and supernatural miracles and the like.

Ok, I'll start the age of reason this week, So I can understand better, what I'm talking about.

What do people need? A snapshot and fingerprints? Of course Jesus was real.

Someone in here speaks of the message sent and the idea in here is to focus on that. He said to not look to flesh for truth but rather to look to God and what he was saying. I suppose we see why this was said now.

He was a touchy topic during his active years so things had to be done quietly. His time preaching was very short as well, and only after he died were his words and deeds documented (also had proven himself to be their messiah). I would say for only a few years of being in the spotlight - to a handful of people (and we know how time flies) there is plenty of proof.

Thecakeisalie
reply to post by Scope and a Beam

 

And Jesus wasn't always the prominent figure he is now, in the time before his resurrection he was followed by a dozen disciples and maybe a hundred or so devotees, which would seem insignificant to the great leaders of the time who ruled nations, and so Jesus' story obviously wouldn't be a tale that the few scholars would pay much attention to.

I'm sorry but these are the kind of explanations that don't add up to me. You're telling me people wouldn't pay much attention to a man performing regular acts of real magic?

reply to post by Dianec


The truth is, any and every piece of evidence that remotely suggests that any portion of the bible is true will be ridiculed, mocked, burried,distorted and even destroyed until the day Jesus returns and establishes His kingdom Himself. Only then will the laughing stop.