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

Dr1Akula
Historians that do scientific research and don't rely on biased conclusions, don't take supernatural stories as credible evidence. Much more when the story comes only from the apostles, who knew very well each other, and could very well made up the same story together before they spread around the new religion.

You can't assume that.
Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the Apostle did not know the other apostles because he was on his way to Damascus to put more Christians in jail. Then he had the experience of the resurrected Jesus. Three years later Paul went and talked to of the eyewitnesses himself, Peter and James - the brother of Jesus.

From Dr. Gary Habermas - JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM: AN APOLOGETIC
"Virtually all scholars today agree that Jesus died by crucifixion and that his body was afterwards buried. Due to his death, his disciples were despondent, believing that all hope was gone. At this point many contemporary scholars add that the burial tomb was found empty a few days later, but that it did not cause belief in the disciples.
It is virtually unanimous that, soon afterwards, the disciples had experiences which they were convinced were appearances of the risen Jesus. These experiences transformed their lives as they believed that Jesus was literally alive. These experiences also emboldened them to preach and witness in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had been crucified and buried only a short time previously. Here it was the message of Jesus' resurrection which was the central proclamation for these eyewitnesses. History also relates that, due to this testimony, the Christian church grew, featuring Sunday as the primary day of worship. Some
scholars add here that one of the early church leaders was James, the brother of Jesus, who was a skeptic until he believed he saw the risen Jesus. Basically all agree that a persecutor of the church, Saul of
Tarsus, was converted to Christianity by an experience which he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
These are a minimum number of facts agreed upon by almost all critical scholars who study this topic, whatever their school of thought.
From this summary, at least eleven separate facts can be considered to be knowable history (while another is additionally recognized by many): (1) Jesus died due to crucifixion and (2) was buried afterwards.
(3) Jesus' death caused the disciples to experience despair and lose hope, believing that their master was dead. (4) Although not as widely accepted, many scholars acknowledge several weighty arguments
which indicate that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
Almost all critical scholars further agree that (5) the disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Due to these experiences, (6) the disciples were trans-
formed from timid and troubled doubters afraid to identify them- selves with Jesus to bold preachers of his death and resurrection who were more than willing to die for their faith in him. (7) This message
was the center of preaching in the earliest church and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, the same city where Jesus had recently died and had been buried.

As a direct result of this preaching, (9) the church was born, (10) featuring Sunday as the special day of worship. (11) James, a brother of Jesus who had been a skeptic, was converted when he believed
that he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later, Paul was also converted to the Christian faith by an experience which he, likewise, thought was an appearance of the risen Jesus. Such facts are crucial in terms of our contemporary investigation of Jesus' resurrection. With the possible exception of the empty tomb, the great majority of critical scholars who study this subject agree that these are the minimal historical facts surrounding this event. As such, any conclusions concerning the historicity of the resurrection should at least properly account for them."

Dr1Akula
They only wrote about jesus,they weren't respectable writers of their time that wrote many other documents of various subjects (among the gospells), so we can judge their writing character and so on their credibility. They came out of nowhere and they only wrote one supernatural story about a person, that none else had ever met, or heard about.
Everything we know about Jesus first come out of this suspecious group of people. (the apostles) No other historical evidence or archeological finds. *

If I was in their shoes I would of wrote about Jesus also because He took our sins, died and rose again. They seen Him.

Dr1Akula
Unlike the various credible, unbiased independent writers that wrote about Alexander the Great and various other historic figures. (Yes there where some myths told about Alexander but knowing the writing character by the other works of each writer we can easily spot the myth and the ''hype'' from the reality).
* There were many people back then called messiahs, Christs (gifted) and Yeshua which was a common Jewish name.
But thats it, None else discribes Jesus christ as the figure we know today apart from the apostles.

Sure there were many messiahs, etc... but no one, not anyone changed lives like Jesus.

"After the murder of Jesus the House of Annas tried to erase all evidence of this Jesus from all literature available at that time."

Sounds like something christians would do. Oh, wait..

windword
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Sorry, if you had read the thread, you would know that Josephus and Tacitus have already been discussed. Those sources have been debunked over and over again.

Josephus' citation is an out and out forgery, an interpolation inserted probably by Eusebius of Caesarea, but certainly by some scribe that felt the need to pad the books, and add lies to bolster the Christian case.

The Tacitus quote isn't referring to the followers of Jesus, who were not called Christians, as there was already several pagan cults using the "Christ" theme at the time. The early followers of Jesus, if he existed, were called Nazarene.

See i thought the same thing at first but you have to realize there was also an arabic version found. Since all the known copies cannot be from the same source this would make it impossible. And the arabic version is slightly different without the additions.Meaning its copied from an earlier version. It states

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous.And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

Notice the christian beliefs was removed from this version of Josephuse's work.Now as far as nazarenes early christians were not known as nazarenes this is a misunderstanding. See nazarites were a jewish sect not christians. The meaning derives from nazir meaning consecrated.There beliefs we would define as what we would call kosher today. Such as not touching a dead body eating pork etc. So your evidence seems to be faulty because though Jesus was a nazarite being jewish his disciples were not known as nazarenes. As far as romans early christians were considered pagans so to say groups known as "christ" were pagans and not christians is well stupid. If they worshipped christ they are christians there was just many denominations such as the Essenes for example. Speaking of which we also have the dead sea scrolls written at the time at about 67 AD meaning that this proves the apostles work were first hand accounts seeing as this would mean they were copied from earlier works most likely scrolls. This means the apostles wrote them just after christs death making them a first person narrative.

Now you can argue all you like but in court we allow witnesses who were at the scene of a crime testify. Well that means there testimony would hold up in a court of law as well. There is no doubt from historians Jesus existed there is even mention of his brother. Now did he do the things they claimed who knows but i will say this if the Romans could have disproved the Christians claim they would have they were very scared of christianity.

reply to post by texastig

Evidence for the Bible can take many forms. There is, for instance, physical evidence. We have copies of the manuscripts and throughout history these copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately.

Where is the evidence/documentation of the celestial event of supposed birth of Jesus? Where is the evidence of the impossible eclipse that supposedly occurred at the time of the crucifixion? Where is the evidence/documentation of the earthquake that ripped through Jerusalem that same day? Where is the evidence/documentation of all the dead people walking the street and visiting their families that day?

Despite common skeptical claims that the Bible has often been changed through the centuries, the physical evidence tells another story. The New Testament records are incredibly accurate. There are minor differences in manuscripts, called variants, but none of these variants impact or change key Christian beliefs or claims.

The Bible has NOT been transmitted accurately by any stretch of the imagination. What Bible do you think the Hebrews were using? The Old Testament in your King James Bible?

The Song of Moses, (Deuteronomy) has a lot of translation errors, for example King James:

32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

The Dead Sea Scrolls:

"When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men,
he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance."

A much different meaning in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Also, where are the books of Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc., and the more sectarian rules and beliefs of Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk and The Rule of the Blessing?

Other physical evidence includes archaeological finds. The Archaeological Study Bible presents many notes and articles documenting how archaeology has again and again proven that the Bible does correspond to historical reality.

Lots of historical fiction cites real people and cities.

There are other kinds of evidence that the Bible is true. These have to do with internal consistency and coherence. Although the Bible was written over many centuries by different writers, the messages it contains are coherent and consistent. The Bible presents a coherent theology and worldview and presents this material consistently.

There is all kinds of evidence that the Bible is a compilation of stolen myths. The creation story, the flood story, the story of Job, Moses, and so many others are borrowed from neighboring mythology. The BIble isn't even original, little alone authentic Hebrew history.

Moreover, the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history.

There is nothing reasonable about Bible stories!

Really? Jonah spent 3 days inside the belly of a whale? Jesus was born from a virgin? Arose from the dead? Seriously? That's your idea of reasonable?

Historians confirm that there was no great exodus of Hebrew slaves from ancient Egypt. There's no evidence of Hebrew nomads wandering the desert for 40 years. No evidence that Bethlehem was inhabited at the time of Jesus' supposed birth. No evidence of a census, and even if there was a census, Galilee wasn't under Roman authority at the time.

There is no evidence of any celestial events marking the life and death of Jesus, no eclipse or record of a darkened sky, no earth quake and do dead people walking the streets. The Bible is far from reasonable and reliable. In fact, outside of the Bible, there is no evidence that Jesus ever even lived, let alone died for anyone's sin.

So how did we get here? Something cannot come from nothing. There has to be a Creator because mindless and unguided evolution cannot create complex organisms.

Where did you creator come from?

reply to post by daskakik


EVIDENTLY . . .

you'd be standing beside a

"BRIDGE IS OUT"

sign ranting about how horribly and inexcusably it was such a

stinking pile of unhelpful, useless, destructive FEAR MONGERING!

Cute.

Not really.

Absurd is more accuate.

reply to post by dragonridr


I'm convinced that a significant chunk of the naysayers' persons are also at least unconsciously terrified of Jesus and Christianity.

To the degree they have a shred of God-given discernment left, they must KNOW in their knower that

JESUS EXISTED
AND THAT HE WAS WHO HE SAID HE WAS

AND THAT therefore, their rebellion, hostility, defiance is off the wall wrong and doomed to reap an incredibly dreadful consequence.

However, they keep the lies from the pit swirling around so constantly in their consciousness, they evidently manage to be successfully enough distracted from the truths related to Jesus.

Sometimes it seems like . . . they protest too much . . . perhaps trying to intensify & deepen their delusions about Christ in order to avoid accepting the truths involved.

The amount of abject FAITH they have in such a convoluted variety of stinking piles of blather purporting to justify their irrationality re Christ . . . is incredible.

Faith in The Living Christ is orders of magnitude easier, more rational, more factually based, etc.

windword
reply to post by texastig

 

Evidence for the Bible can take many forms. There is, for instance, physical evidence. We have copies of the manuscripts and throughout history these copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately.

Where is the evidence/documentation of the celestial event of supposed birth of Jesus? Where is the evidence of the impossible eclipse that supposedly occurred at the time of the crucifixion? Where is the evidence/documentation of the earthquake that ripped through Jerusalem that same day? Where is the evidence/documentation of all the dead people walking the street and visiting their families that day?

Despite common skeptical claims that the Bible has often been changed through the centuries, the physical evidence tells another story. The New Testament records are incredibly accurate. There are minor differences in manuscripts, called variants, but none of these variants impact or change key Christian beliefs or claims.

The Bible has NOT been transmitted accurately by any stretch of the imagination. What Bible do you think the Hebrews were using? The Old Testament in your King James Bible?

The Song of Moses, (Deuteronomy) has a lot of translation errors, for example King James:

32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

The Dead Sea Scrolls:

"When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men,
he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance."

A much different meaning in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Also, where are the books of Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc., and the more sectarian rules and beliefs of Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk and The Rule of the Blessing?

Other physical evidence includes archaeological finds. The Archaeological Study Bible presents many notes and articles documenting how archaeology has again and again proven that the Bible does correspond to historical reality.

Lots of historical fiction cites real people and cities.

There are other kinds of evidence that the Bible is true. These have to do with internal consistency and coherence. Although the Bible was written over many centuries by different writers, the messages it contains are coherent and consistent. The Bible presents a coherent theology and worldview and presents this material consistently.

There is all kinds of evidence that the Bible is a compilation of stolen myths. The creation story, the flood story, the story of Job, Moses, and so many others are borrowed from neighboring mythology. The BIble isn't even original, little alone authentic Hebrew history.

Moreover, the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history.

There is nothing reasonable about Bible stories!

Really? Jonah spent 3 days inside the belly of a whale? Jesus was born from a virgin? Arose from the dead? Seriously? That's your idea of reasonable?

Historians confirm that there was no great exodus of Hebrew slaves from ancient Egypt. There's no evidence of Hebrew nomads wandering the desert for 40 years. No evidence that Bethlehem was inhabited at the time of Jesus' supposed birth. No evidence of a census, and even if there was a census, Galilee wasn't under Roman authority at the time.

There is no evidence of any celestial events marking the life and death of Jesus, no eclipse or record of a darkened sky, no earth quake and do dead people walking the streets. The Bible is far from reasonable and reliable. In fact, outside of the Bible, there is no evidence that Jesus ever even lived, let alone died for anyone's sin.

So how did we get here? Something cannot come from nothing. There has to be a Creator because mindless and unguided evolution cannot create complex organisms.

Where did you creator come from?

See your problem appears to be with the torah and the old testiment. This thread was asking for proof of christ which through records has been done. Look where something originated doesnt mean it wasnt part of there history either see like gilgamesh could be noah where the story originated doesnt disprove it either. So the argument is silly to say just because another religion mentions it its false. Since every religion in the world is founded from an earlier religion.

reply to post by dragonridr

Notice the christian beliefs was removed from this version of Josephuse's work.

So, someone took a copy of the forgery and removed the offending "Christian" part and that makes it a true version of what Josephus actually wrote? Nope, I don't think so.

The "Arabic Josephus"

In a novel embellishment to the notion of an orthodox Jew giving testimony of Jesus, defenders of the faith have in recent times tossed an Arabic version of the Josephus text on to their pile of dubious evidence. The Arabic recension was brought to light in 1971 by Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Pines himself remained cautious about claims of untampered authenticity but the brethren have no such reservations, such is their desperation to keep Josephus in the witness stand for Jesus.

The work in question is actually a history of the world to the year 941/942 penned by a Christian Arab bishop, Agapius of Hierapolis. His World History preserves, in Arabic translation, a version of the Testimonium minus the most obvious Christian interpolations.

But what does a 10th century copy actually prove?

Claims that the Arabic passage itself dates from the 4th century are untenable (written Arabic barely existed at such an early date). Moreover Agapius was a Melkite Christian (pro-Byzantium) at a time of intensifying Islamization of his native Syria. What he wrote was political correctness for his own times. A new Shia Hamdani dynasty had been established barely 50 miles away in Aleppo. Its first prince, Sayf ad Dawlah ("sword of the state"), began a century of persistent attacks against Byzantium. Agapius' paraphrase of a Syriac rendition of Josephus from a Greek original rather significantly mentions JC's "condemnation to die" but not the actuality of it and of JC being "alive" 3 days later – in other words, a carefully balanced compatibility with Muhammad's view of a Jesus as a prophet who did not die on the cross.

In short, the Arabic Josephus is no evidence of the Christian godman and serves only to confuse the unwary.
www.jesusneverexisted.com...

Now as far as nazarenes early christians were not known as nazarenes this is a misunderstanding.

No, no misunderstanding.

The fourth century Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote of this group from the time of 69/70 A.D. until his day, and he starts out with an interesting admission:
"All Christians were called Nazarenes once…They were so-called followers of the apostles…they dedicate themselves to the law…However, everyone called the Christians Nazarenes as I said before."

Acts 242:5
For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

Acts 22:8
"And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.'

Notice how the ghost of Jesus calls himself the "Nazarene", not the "Christ".

Now you can argue all you like but in court we allow witnesses who were at the scene of a crime testify.

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus and wasn't even born until after his supposed death. Paul was NOT on the scene of the living Jesus. Paul never cites any of miracles or saying that Jesus supposed did or said and never repeats any of his teachings. Paul never met Jesus and knew nothing about him or his live, if he existed. The gospels are all written after the fact and are written anonymously. No court allows for anonymous testimony or second hand, hearsay testimony.

Well that means there testimony would hold up in a court of law as well.

Nope, it would even be admitted into the record.

reply to post by texastig

From Dr. Gary Habermas - JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM: AN APOLOGETIC
"Virtually all scholars today agree that Jesus died by crucifixion and that his body was afterwards buried.

Here is another example of a Christian apologetic who willingly lies to push his point.

The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person. Perhaps he wasn't really "the Messiah", perhaps he was not "The Son of God", and perhaps he didn't actually perform miracles and rise from the dead, but he really was a great moral teacher who traveled around Galilee with followers and got arrested by the Jews and crucified by the Romans right?

Not likely. In fact, a close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of "Jesus Christ" is what we call "mythology". The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ". Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.
rationalrevolution.net...

What is the basis for the claim that "Jesus never existed"?

Actually, there are many important facts that support this conclusion. First let's look at an outline of some of the major points in this case:

The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it
The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction
Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures
Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures
Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically
The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record
The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life
Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person
There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime
Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea
All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims
There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories
There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh"
The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh"

reply to post by windword


Simple it was copied from an earlier source and does mention Jesus. So the Arabic source obviously is different now you could try to argue both men happen to get there text close but that would be one hell of a coincidence. It highly likely they both gave there interpretation of the works of Josephus in latin and translated it.Were you aware Josephus mentions christians several times in his writings and deals with several things mentioned in the bible. This isnt his only statement its the only one he mentioned Christ in thats all. Now using the BS saying it was redone by a christian doesnt work. Reason is most scholars at that time were religious they were the ones who could read! So again the argument doesnt hold water on that point and is merely a way for someone who hates Christianity to bash it. We have two sources of josephus's work from two different individuals from latin.

Now as far as nazarenes your clueless this was a jewish population not a christian population. Jesus was a nazerene obviously. He grew up in that area and he was jewish and lived by there beliefs but christians were not considered nazarenes they were nazrites.

en.wikipedia.org...

It wasnt until the fourth century is the term associated with christians in the Epiphanius of Salamis and again this was more a reference to the birthplace of jesus being nazareth. So you're wrong so trying to say Cornelius Tacitus wasnt taking about christians which by the way at the time were being burned at the stake is stupid. Especially because he didnt call them jews! And the term being used for Christians doesnt appear in anything until 200 years later. It obvious at the time rome had no doubt Jesus existed and im sure being a historian Cornelius Tacitus would have verified this.

So your effort to debunk Josephus and Tacitus is nothing more than an attempt to disprove christianity but in history we have to take people at there word not try to interpret it through a filter like your source is trying to do.

reply to post by dragonridr

dragonridr
reply to post by windword

 

Simple it was copied from an earlier source and does mention Jesus. So the Arabic source obviously is different now you could try to argue both men happen to get there text close but that would be one hell of a coincidence.

Nope, it didn't show up until the year 941/942. It is obviously a copy of the forgery.

The work in question is actually a history of the world to the year 941/942 penned by a Christian Arab bishop, Agapius of Hierapolis. His World History preserves, in Arabic translation, a version of the Testimonium minus the most obvious Christian interpolations.

It highly likely they both gave there interpretation of the works of Josephus in latin and translated it.

Josephus manuscripts were written in Greek. They were translated to Latin by Jerome in the 4th century.

Were you aware Josephus mentions christians several times in his writings

Show me, please.

Origen specifically declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ. In the edition Origen published by the Benedictines, there is no mention of Jesus by Josephus.

4. It is doubtful that the James of Josephus is the same as James the Just, brother of Jesus. James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus. [5]

5. Hegesippus wrote in 165 - 175 AD about the death of James that has irreconcilable conflicts with the account in Josephus’ writings.

Not An Isolated Occurrence, But A Pattern

There are numerous documented examples from the Old and New Testament of theologians and scribes changing verses that did not convey the meaning they thought correct or best. Several of these are referenced on this web site.

Conclusion

The appeal to Josephus as an extra-Biblical confirmatory source regarding Jesus fails an in depth examination. The Testimonium Flavainum certainly is a partial or complete forgery and the section referring to James is also doubtful in authenticity [11,12,13,14]. Continued Christian references to Josephus as a confirmatory source for the Bible should cease. The changes made to the writings of Josephus are not an isolated occurrence, but represent a pattern of Christian forgeries that are pervasive throughout the centuries. Terming this behavior as “interpolations” and “pseudepigraphical writing” does not deflect what is really occurring; Christians attempting to change history through fraudulent means.
www.trueorigins.us...#/josephus-christianity/4552113072

Now as far as nazarenes your clueless this was a jewish population not a christian population.

Early followers of Jesus were Jews, and Paul was their ringleader, according to Acts.

So you're wrong so trying to say Cornelius Tacitus wasnt taking about christians which by the way at the time were being burned at the stake is stupid.

So your effort to debunk Josephus and Tacitus is nothing more than an attempt to disprove christianity but in history we have to take people at there word not try to interpret it through a filter like your source is trying to do.

If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.
nazirene.org...

There was already pagan cults that were using the term "Christ" "Chrestus" "Christos" and "Christians" before the advent and after the advent of Jesus. That is a fact! Jesus Christ never existed! Perhaps, there was a Jesus of Nazareth, but he wasn't born of a virgin didn't rise from the dead and didn't die for the sins of the world.

colbe

Dr1Akula

BO XIAN

Some things are more reasonably debatable, to me than others.

Everyone has his own standards, But things that affect societies are a priority to me.

BO XIAN
With more than 3,000 hours of intense group process experience . . . I enjoy a vigorous, even intense, heated exchange as long as there's some discernible mutual respect for personhood on both sides.

I totally agree. and since respect must come both ways, and it is not only the right of the religious, I think religious people should also respect the opinions of other peoples beliefs
for ex. the belief that bible is just a fairytale.

BO XIAN
In my region of the SW USA . . . farmers and cowboys tended to say things bluntly . . . often with flavor and bite . . . not necessarily personal . . . just being real with an aversion to pussy-footing around reality.

I totally respect that, so you wouldn't mind if others use the some way of expressing themselves about their opinion on religion,

BO XIAN

I have some obligation to be hearable. But the hearer also has some obligation to earnestly endeavoring to hear.

And, I've found from hard experience that even when I'm my most gracious and gentle, the other side as often as not will still be disinclined to hear. I'm not talking about agreement . . . I'm talking about hearing and understanding what was said/written.

Besides what you might think is your obligation, the other side is not at all bound to listen or understand you.
You may believe you hold the truth and proof on your words, but that requires an acceptance of belief from the others, To an atheist that's wishful thinking.

Beside that I totally understand your POV and what you are saying, I used to be a Christian, I used to argue and ''fight'' for the ''truth'' of Jesus and I used to defend the bible.
But getting old I kept finding things that didn't make sense. When I met logic and critical thinking I started question the bible and christian ideology, and after a decade of research and truth seeking, I not only find the bible a fabricated fairytale, but I disagree with everything christianity stands for.

A message of light you might say
A few words of light warped in ignorance, arrogance, murders, and misery backed up by an imaginary being in the sky who the primitive Jews thought was the answer to their existence.

In ancient Greek philosophy and cosmology, we have much much much better messages on how to live your life and teachings of goodness, ethics and standards, that a society must rely on - for the well being and healthy future of humanity. I am an atheist physicist and I don't believe in miracles, Holy spirits, sins, devils, demons and messiahs cause my God is nature and my bible is science but I'm keeping an open mind on everything I can change my mind about something, all I need is physical proof.
You see my ideology is not a dogma and I also believe in the existence of good and evil but only in the minds of humans.
and the most evil this world has ever seen was from the religious minds.

I know we can never find agreement on the subject since I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't respect you as a person.

I shared already on another page, link to a video story (Huffington Post) of the 2011 Italian research on the Shroud of Turin, the burial cloth of Our Lord.

Have faith, ask God in prayer to give you faith to believe. The marks made, happened at the moment of Our Lord's Resurrection. Proof of Christ and His claim to being God and man.

Back to the Italian study, your bible is science, a quote about the findings:


...You did notice that the quotes in my link were made by the RCC? These are your own people saying these You did notice that the quotes in my link were made by the RCC? These are your own people saying these


www.huffingtonpost.com...


GBY,


colbe

Bumping this up. No response from the disbelievers. I guess because it proves Our Lord is God and
He did rise from the dead. Isn't it interesting, all the multi-studies of Science of the most famous mystical all point to Christ.

How can you go it alone, spend your days saying no, I do need Our Lord, He did not and does not exist. Talk of the loneliness.

Yu can change, some of the most brilliant, talented people have discoverd Jesus Christ, the Father and
God the Holy Spirit. Talk to Them, you can any time of day. God, the Blessed Trinity is the begging
love, They beg you to love Them!


love,

colbe

reply to post by colbe


From the very first paragraph of the article you linked:

A series of experiments conducted by Italian researchers indicate the Shroud of Turin is likely authentic, but the team has not yet reached a definite conclusion.

This hardly proves anything, even the article says so further down:

The "authenticity" or otherwise of the Shroud of Turin does not have any implications for whether or not Christ was real, or whether He was divine. If it was a medieval forgery, it doesn't mean the stories aren't true; if it really was made in the first century AD, it doesn't mean they were.

What you have here is called confirmation bias. You only see what you want to see.

windword

No, no misunderstanding.

Yes, unfortunately there is a misunderstanding. The term "nazarene" was never accepted by the church, instead they accepted the term Christian...In fact, Epiphanius even distinguishes between the two(1st century "Christians" and 4th century "Nazarenes"). The word "Nazarene" even survived into modern hebrew as notzrim (נוצרים) which oddly enough means "Christian". It also survives through modern Arabic as nasara or....you guessed it, "Christian".

Epiphanius was pointing to a particular SECT of Nazarenes, or Christians...perhaps those who had strayed or wandered from original doctrines and teachings....but again, we see no evidence for this sect and no evidence to support the usage of this term prior to Tertullus...

The fourth century Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote of this group from the time of 69/70 A.D. until his day, and he starts out with an interesting admission:
"All Christians were called Nazarenes once…They were so-called followers of the apostles…they dedicate themselves to the law…However, everyone called the Christians Nazarenes as I said before."

And as I said before, there is ZERO evidence to support this claim. In fact, many people believe Antioch coined the term Christian and Jerusalem coined the term Nazarene, but this too is only speculation. What we do know is that "Christian" was the ACCEPTED term, and calling someone a Nazarene more often than not meant they were FROM Nazareth and not necessarily of any particular sect of Christianity....

Acts 242:5
For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

Acts 22:8
"And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.'

Notice how the ghost of Jesus calls himself the "Nazarene", not the "Christ".

Notice how in the original Greek, Jesus calls himself "Jesus OF Nazareth..." meaning FROM NAZARETH....it's not a title...you have to understand that by now....

Interestingly enough, Jerome (4th century)says this about the Nazarenes:

What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called 'Nasarenes'; they believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither.

This 4th century sect of Nazarenes referenced by Epiphanius cannot be equated with the mention of "Nazarenes" by Tertullus. There is no evidence of correlation. Early Christians were most definately NOT called Nazarenes...nor did they have the same beliefs and values. Some core differences between the 4th century sect of Nazarenes mentioned by Epiphanius and the 1st century "Nasara" or "Christians"...

The Nazarenes... accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law.
—Jerome, On. Is. 8:14
They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ; but since they are still fettered by the Law – circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest – they are not in accord with the Christians.
—Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.4
Use of Old Testament and New Testament:
They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do.
—Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2


source

edit to add: the funniest thing is that the Nazarenes REJECTED Paul as having any authority whatsoever...Yet in the book of Acts Paul is accused of being the ringleader....Hmm....SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY. Two different "Nazarenes" apparently huh?

A2D

reply to post by windword


In case you missed it, some Christians were called Nazarenes, but not all Christians were Nazarenes...just like today, some Christians are called Baptists, but not all Christians are Baptists....I don't know how this isn't evident. =)

That 4th century sect of Christianity referred to as "Nazarenes" as pointed out, rejected the Apostle Paul's authority....This brings us to 1 of 2 conclusions....Either A) The 1st century Nazarenes eventually changed beliefs and customs and ended up coming to odds with Paul's authority somewhere along the way or B) The 4th century Nazarenes were an offshoot of the original church...

A2D

reply to post by BO XIAN

Sure, if the sign is in a spot where a bridge never even existed.

To try and tie it in to the topic on hand, a person sets up a sign in a spot where no bridge has ever existed because some old story said that there used to be a bridge there, would I be wrong in pointing out that the sign is in the middle of a flat field?

colbe

colbe

Dr1Akula

BO XIAN

Some things are more reasonably debatable, to me than others.

Everyone has his own standards, But things that affect societies are a priority to me.

BO XIAN
With more than 3,000 hours of intense group process experience . . . I enjoy a vigorous, even intense, heated exchange as long as there's some discernible mutual respect for personhood on both sides.

I totally agree. and since respect must come both ways, and it is not only the right of the religious, I think religious people should also respect the opinions of other peoples beliefs
for ex. the belief that bible is just a fairytale.

BO XIAN
In my region of the SW USA . . . farmers and cowboys tended to say things bluntly . . . often with flavor and bite . . . not necessarily personal . . . just being real with an aversion to pussy-footing around reality.

I totally respect that, so you wouldn't mind if others use the some way of expressing themselves about their opinion on religion,

BO XIAN

I have some obligation to be hearable. But the hearer also has some obligation to earnestly endeavoring to hear.

And, I've found from hard experience that even when I'm my most gracious and gentle, the other side as often as not will still be disinclined to hear. I'm not talking about agreement . . . I'm talking about hearing and understanding what was said/written.

Besides what you might think is your obligation, the other side is not at all bound to listen or understand you.
You may believe you hold the truth and proof on your words, but that requires an acceptance of belief from the others, To an atheist that's wishful thinking.

Beside that I totally understand your POV and what you are saying, I used to be a Christian, I used to argue and ''fight'' for the ''truth'' of Jesus and I used to defend the bible.
But getting old I kept finding things that didn't make sense. When I met logic and critical thinking I started question the bible and christian ideology, and after a decade of research and truth seeking, I not only find the bible a fabricated fairytale, but I disagree with everything christianity stands for.

A message of light you might say
A few words of light warped in ignorance, arrogance, murders, and misery backed up by an imaginary being in the sky who the primitive Jews thought was the answer to their existence.

In ancient Greek philosophy and cosmology, we have much much much better messages on how to live your life and teachings of goodness, ethics and standards, that a society must rely on - for the well being and healthy future of humanity. I am an atheist physicist and I don't believe in miracles, Holy spirits, sins, devils, demons and messiahs cause my God is nature and my bible is science but I'm keeping an open mind on everything I can change my mind about something, all I need is physical proof.
You see my ideology is not a dogma and I also believe in the existence of good and evil but only in the minds of humans.
and the most evil this world has ever seen was from the religious minds.

I know we can never find agreement on the subject since I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't respect you as a person.

I shared already on another page, link to a video story (Huffington Post) of the 2011 Italian research on the Shroud of Turin, the burial cloth of Our Lord.

Have faith, ask God in prayer to give you faith to believe. The marks made, happened at the moment of Our Lord's Resurrection. Proof of Christ and His claim to being God and man.

Back to the Italian study, your bible is science, a quote about the findings:


...You did notice that the quotes in my link were made by the RCC? These are your own people saying these You did notice that the quotes in my link were made by the RCC? These are your own people saying these


www.huffingtonpost.com...


GBY,


colbe

Bumping this up. No response from the disbelievers. I guess because it proves Our Lord is God and
He did rise from the dead. Isn't it interesting, all the multi-studies of Science of the most famous mystical all point to Christ.

How can you go it alone, spend your days saying no, I do need Our Lord, He did not and does not exist. Talk of the loneliness.

Yu can change, some of the most brilliant, talented people have discoverd Jesus Christ, the Father and
God the Holy Spirit. Talk to Them, you can any time of day. God, the Blessed Trinity is the begging
love, They beg you to love Them!


love,

colbe

Well im sure the shroud is probably a forgery. But im still fascinated as to how it was done since painting was ruled out since it is only on the top fibers. If it is real then why would the image be there in the first place nothing about this makes any sense.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Yes, unfortunately there is a misunderstanding. The term "nazarene" was never accepted by the church, instead they accepted the term Christian.

What you don't understand is that I'm not talking about the "Church" or what the "Church" accepted. I"m saying that during the life of Jesus, and shortly thereafter, if he existed, his followers were NOT called Christians.

And as I said before, there is ZERO evidence to support this claim.

Only if you ignore the evidence!

The fourth century Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote of this group from the time of 69/70 A.D. until his day, and he starts out with an interesting admission:

"All Christians were called Nazarenes once…"

Now while most people understand that the early Christians were called Nazarenes, most simply do not realize that the Nazarenes had Judaeo-Christian practices that dated from the original apostles that they never changed.
www.cogwriter.com...

Notice how in the original Greek, Jesus calls himself "Jesus OF Nazareth..." meaning FROM NAZARETH....it's not a title...you have to understand that by now....

Acts 22:8
"And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.'

biblehub.com...

Notice how the ghost of Jesus calls himself the "Nazarene", not the "Christ"? You have to understand, by now, that Christ is a Roman Catholic/pagan construct that was interpolated, added and substituted while the "Church" was busy killing those pesky, heretical Nazarenes.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

In case you missed it, some Christians were called Nazarenes, but not all Christians were Nazarenes...just like today, some Christians are called Baptists, but not all Christians are Baptists....I don't know how this isn't evident. =)

In case you missed it, one more time for posterity,

"All Christians were called Nazarenes once…"

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge confirms that the name (Christian) "originated outside of Christian and Jewish circles". The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible states that: "By the late first and early second centuries the name ‘Christian,’ which early believers avoided using of themselves, was beginning to be accepted".
nazirene.org...

Early "Christians" were NOT called "Christians" and Jesus, if he existed, was never called, nor would he have accepted the title "Christ". Jesus Christ never existed!

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by colbe

 

From the very first paragraph of the article you linked:

A series of experiments conducted by Italian researchers indicate the Shroud of Turin is likely authentic, but the team has not yet reached a definite conclusion.

This hardly proves anything, even the article says so further down:

The "authenticity" or otherwise of the Shroud of Turin does not have any implications for whether or not Christ was real, or whether He was divine. If it was a medieval forgery, it doesn't mean the stories aren't true; if it really was made in the first century AD, it doesn't mean they were.

What you have here is called confirmation bias. You only see what you want to see.

3NL, trashing the Shroud of Turin as being the burial cloth of Our Lord, that's a change of heart. You fail to post the quote from the same Huffington video report I shared here. Your last sentence describes you.

How lonely the denial of God must be? But, oh joy, all of us have until the moment we die to find God.

Science stops being disbeliever's GOD when the Scientific study findings cannot explain the mystical but a the same time share in their results, the preternatural.

Jesus arose from the dead, not one part of Him unhurt before He died! The marks on the Shroud of Turin are the moment of His Resurrection. There's your proof, Jesus lived, He is God.


..."This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date."

texastig

You can't assume that.
Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the Apostle did not know the other apostles because he was on his way to Damascus to put more Christians in jail. Then he had the experience of the resurrected Jesus. Three years later Paul went and talked to of the eyewitnesses himself, Peter and James - the brother of Jesus.

The wikipedia says that besides the new testament which half of it has been writen by Paul himself there are no other sources of his life, So his story only comes from himself, how credible is that? Couldn't he made that all up, Where can we judge the credibility of that person?
every single thing we know about Jesus and the apostles life story comes only from them. where is the proof that they told us the truth?

So my point still stands.
(They only wrote about jesus,they weren't respectable writers of their time that wrote many other documents of various subjects (among the gospells), so we can judge their writing character and so on their credibility. They came out of nowhere and they only wrote one supernatural story about a person, that none else had ever met, or heard about.
Everything we know about Jesus first come out of this suspecious group of people. (the apostles) No other historical evidence or archeological finds.)

Dr. Gary Habermas main source was the new testament and early christian accounts, no independent sources.
Beside that he is an evangelical Christian apologist, Deeply religious who dedicated his life on trying to prove Jesus resurrection.
So do the majority of the scholars you are reffering to, they are christians (biased towards the subject) and they take the new testament as historic fact,
but dont forget the title of the thread.

'' Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing other than biblical references''


So yes if I first believe in Jesus as the son of God, then I can believe he resurrected, so I can assume the new testament is a reliable book of history. But If I am a skeptic ''third person viewer'' I need more proofs than a single Book (New testament) writen in parts by a few friends who obviously ( to me ) made up stories of unbelievable claims.
You see scientific historical facts should be rock solid proof to anyone, regardless the religion, nationality etc. and not only to the believers. If we had those fact there would be no need for a debate.

If someone (generally speaking) believe so easily a person who claims to have seen Jesus the son of God, what stops that man to also believe in Mohamed, Thor, Shiva, Osiris, Anubis, Dionysous etc.
People of (also) no credibility have claimed to see their miracles too. See the resemblance?

texastig

If I was in their shoes I would of wrote about Jesus also because He took our sins, died and rose again. They seen Him.

Which again we need first to believe their story is real. So my point still stands

texastig


Sure there were many messiahs, etc... but no one, not anyone changed lives like Jesus.

That could also happen if he was just a creation of fiction, Belief is all that you need.
If someone believes in a deity, it motivates him, and changes his life. Cause the person feels more secure and his subconscious rests from the ultimate questions,(where we come from?, whats the meaning to our lifes? what happens after death?) All people subconsciously feel deeply insecure about these questions and many hold on tight to a religion which answers it.
It is so plain and simple that all religions just sell peace of mind...

But that is the problem, having got the answers you stop searching for the truth, Because each religion gives you one of their own...