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

dragonridr
veteranhumanbeing
windword
reply to post by texastig


editby]

windwordCertainly, many people named Jesus have existed. And, a carpenter's son named Jesus, from an obscure, tiny village called Nazareth, could have existed. But, Jesus Christ, no, there is no proof, whatsoever, and I don't believe that the Godman ever existed.

vethumanbeingI do for this reason. Jesus was an insert in Judea to fix a percieved probem with the Roman Overlord, possibly to cause an inserrection/revolt among the subjugated. It failed in its 'timeframe' of give or take 15 to 50 years. The Roman Empire was eventually destroyed by the Visigoth overlay in the end. However, in the demi gods "infant"esmal vision/wisdom introduced Mohammed to fix the problems once again within the region. This also failed to bring peace to the area, specifically Medina and Mecca and created more problems for the future. The meddling by others (off world demigods were banned) with these PMR civilizations failed. Im still trying to Grok Hitlers Germany and a world domination ARCHITYPE so recent (who was driving it/behind it and for what reasons). If demigods were disallowed to interfere there leaves only one other (and it was not satan).

dragonridr
Oddly thats why im sure he existed your looking at it the wrong way. Would they have made Jesus so weak killed by there oppressors if they just made the story up? See Jesus didnt fill the role of savior as the jews saw him in fact thats why to this day many jews deny he was the savior.

Not sure Im seeing it as anything other than a shill in hand play and fanfare usership of a being that wasnt exactly told the truth about its real reason for being, or its eventual death and impact/ramifications on future denominations created in its namesake. You realize Jesus was a being instructed for years by an off planet god entity (he never thought to question) as to his real role in sacrifice to whom exactly (as a human tooled blood letting) to appease what? Jesus filled no role of savior to anything but allowed himself to be tortured to death for one reason (he was never privy to) that of "I Was Told to Do This and nothing more". His lament on the cross is as written, "Those that continue to defame me will keep my wounds open". Last gasp for an attempt at maintaining an individuality or personal INTEGRITY (hes really angry 'the usership' by all this btw).

dragonridrIf they were just going to make up a story hundreds of years later they could have made Jesus a super hero battling the romans like david did in the earlier days. Instead they got a a simple man as you put it i think it proves he existed was he the son of god well i dont know never met him. But the point of this was to simply show he existed and i think we can safely say he did.

Jesus was a fully developed 9D spirit/body; incubated in mesoamerica and inserted as a soul/spirit in that timeframe. The basis of the fiction starts with the other (facsimilies, Horus as the best one) as a proven template. Jesus was the son of God, no problem there, because you are no different as an expression thereof. He was given an exagerrated grandiose version of what we all are is all; and believed himself separate or living within a higher frequency (knowledge) than the rest of us (past future souls); I think that is why he was crucified ultimately; not because he was a Potencial Savior but because he was fooled into thinking he was and would have proclaimed this eventually. I suppose what Im really saying is that he was murdered before he could tell the truth; and that was of course turned into a total positive.

windword
Certainly, many people named Jesus have existed. And, a carpenter's son named Jesus, from an obscure, tiny village called Nazareth, could have existed. But, Jesus Christ, no, there is no proof, whatsoever, and I don't believe that the Godman ever existed.

windword, would you be up to providing me the data of the "many people named Jesus"?

reply to post by Gryphon66


Did you read ANYTHING I wrote?

Occam's razor applies because it is MORE LIKELY that the story of Christ is based on a real person rather than a forgery...A forgery would require a large degree of precision, utilization, secrecy, and forgery among other things. (Nothing that you wrote in your reply came even remotely close to an on-topic reply to my post....)
But I'll give you another shot nonetheless....

Here is my description.....

"Christianity is the result of a Jewish carpenter's son named Yeshua born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth whom is said to have fulfilled Messianic prophecies. Since many people of the time believed he was the Messiah or Christ, he was crucified and buried for allegations of "blasphemy". His followers believed that his life/death/resurrection was a sacrifice for their own unrighteousness and that all people were free to partake in the forgiveness granted through that sacrifice. So almost immediately his followers began to spread the message of his life/death/resurrection to many other people so that they too, may be pardoned."

Now let's hear your explanation of how Christianity came about while being based solely on a FICTITIOUS entity named Jesus....
...and then we'll apply Occam's razor CORRECTLY.

I'd like to thank you for your participation in advance. =)

A2D

Gryphon66


Okay, so billions of followers over thousands of years are the proof of authenticity?

Can you quote me on that one? Did you read what I wrote or did you make up words as you looked at the letters I wrote...because you know thats what my 2 year old niece does....because she can't read...she flips through her books and makes up her own story....I sure hope you didn't do that.

A2D

vethumanbeing
I do for this reason. Jesus was an insert in Judea to fix a percieved probem with the Roman Overlord, possibly to cause an inserrection/revolt among the subjugated. It failed in its 'timeframe' of give or take 15 to 50 years. The Roman Empire was eventually destroyed by the Visigoth overlay in the end. However, in the demi gods "infant"esmal vision/wisdom introduced Mohammed to fix the problems once again within the region. This also failed to bring peace to the area, specifically Medina and Mecca and created more problems for the future. The meddling by others (off world demigods were banned) with these PMR civilizations failed. Im still trying to Grok Hitlers Germany and a world domination ARCHITYPE so recent (who was driving it/behind it and for what reasons). If demigods were disallowed to interfere there leaves only one other (and it was not satan).

What is your evidence for this? Do you have citations by scholars or any archaeological evidence?

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


It was all on topic. Your claim was that the number of followers over a number of years verifies the reality of the supposed founder of Christianity.

I merely demonstrated that IF the number of followers over a number of years verifies Jesus, then the rest of the gang is also real. Can't have one without the other according to Occam, right? The least number of multiplicities, right?

Except it's meaningless in your exact terms because your claim very rapidly creates a hopeless contradiction not to mention a circular argument because of the non-believers. Didn't YOU read what I said? Why don't you address those questions while I'm addressing yours.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plenty of Jews in Palestine in the first century named Yeshua. Popular name, reminds people of a great national hero who blew walls down with trumpets. Killed the enemies of Israel. Chased out the enemies of the people who were occupying the land ... and speaking of occupiers ...

Lessee ... lots of Jews really didn't like the Romans, and about every other week, a new Messiah (another promised cultural hero) popped up claiming to be God's Chosen to free Israel from the infidels, er, Romans because, you know, the world is ending next week. Only a few more days to go. Political opportunists spread stories about oh, let's guess that one or two might have been named Yeshua, Yesu, Iesus ... wasn't that his name? Why YES, ladies and gentlemen he is a great man, why, the very earth shakes when he walks by, he heals the sick and raises the dead, he feeds all of you who are starving because of Roman taxes ... and he does all this because he LOVES you and if you'll just commit to his cause, why, not only will the Romans go away but you'll live ... get this ... FOREVER with him in the sky.

Where is he? Why what do you mean, I just told you ... he's with his invisible Father and he's going to come back really really soon and fix this broken-down, topsy-turvy world ... and he, rather He ... sent me to tell you about it, yeah, you don't have to worry about making sacrifices down at the Temple anymore, you know, those Pharisee guys are SOOO stuck up, right? Am I right? SO, you know, it's a lot of work going around and telling every one this story ... I mean this GOOD NEWS ... so, hey, can you give a bit of a donation to Iesus to help his cause ... you know, just to show your faith?

Thirty shekels will do ....

reply to post by Gryphon66


Again, all I asked for is your explanation of how Christianity came to be from a FICTITIOUS entity....

And at the very same time you claim many "Messiahs", REAL INDIVIDUALS MIND YOU, popped up all the time...Couldn't JESUS OF NAZARETH be one of those REAL INDIVIDUALS?

A2D

Gryphon66
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

It was all on topic. Your claim was that the number of followers over a number of years verifies the reality of the supposed founder of Christianity.

and no....

Please go back to my post and QUOTE me saying that...I want to see it....WE ALL want to see it...
A2D

texastig

veteranhumanbeing
I do for this reason. Jesus was an insert in Judea to fix a percieved probem with the Roman Overlord, possibly to cause an inserrection/revolt among the subjugated. It failed in its 'timeframe' of give or take 15 to 50 years. The Roman Empire was ]edit on 8-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: eventually destroyed by the Visigoth overlay in the end. However, in the demi gods "infant"esmal vision/wisdom introduced Mohammed to fix the problems once again within the region. This also failed to bring peace to the area, specifically Medina and Mecca and created more problems for the future. The meddling by others (off world demigods were banned) with these PMR civilizations failed. Im still trying to Grok Hitlers Germany and a world domination ARCHITYPE so recent (who was driving it/behind it and for what reasons). If demigods were disallowed to interfere there leaves only one other (and it was not satan).

texastigWhat is your evidence for this? Do you have citations by scholars or any archaeological evidence?

You have not been talking to my father? (SWARE TO THIS). I am a *Gnostic*; so know this information; bifurcation of differing truth thoughts (forked) or all directions at once in and out of historical data now or then (TIME INCLUDED) as it decribes itself. Dot to Dot format seeking in understanding of the Whole. Archaeological evidence exists before your eyes; there was a reason the dinosaurs had a dramatic demise, it wasnt a self sustaining sub-system (they ate themselves to death/starvation); the flora and fauna available could not sustain the growth or the needs of these gigantic creatures. (oh I imagine you think these are the fossil fuels base and the demise was a good thing).

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Okay, you didn't like my creative attempt ... I'll spell it out: people made Jesus up for political, social and economic reasons in a climate of political, social and economic dissent. The Jews HATED the Romans and HATED that they were in their Holy Land. That HATE is a very easy thread to spin into whatever tapestry you want, because people then as now WANT TO BELIEVE:

"There's an invisible guy in the sky who is coming back to whip the Roman's behinds??? And I will live forever in a mansion in the sky with him when I die? Where do I sign up??? Yes, of course, I remember that guy Jahush, Yahusa, no, no, I remember JESUS! Jesus was his name! Haleluyahoo ... "

OR some variation of that. Occam now. The simplest explanation ... there wasn't a guy who did all these wonderful things, there were a group of political insurgents who used the Messiahs-Under-Every-Rock to form a narrative about a God-man who was coming to make everything better ... tomorrow, or the next day ... or next year or ...

Pfft. Occam. The simplest explanation is best. And the simplest explanation for Jesus is that he was made up. Sorry.

reply to post by Gryphon66


You're neglecting to mention WHAT IT WOULD TAKE to fake THE ENTIRE STORY...

Hint: Individuals like Herod and Josephus should be mentioned....

A2D

Agree2Disagree

Gryphon66
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

It was all on topic. Your claim was that the number of followers over a number of years verifies the reality of the supposed founder of Christianity.

and no....

Please go back to my post and QUOTE me saying that...I want to see it....WE ALL want to see it...
A2D

Friend, it's already quoted above. Everyone can read it. I'm not going to take up more screen space by quoting you again.

Here, your words in red, just like JC's:

Movement on the Scale of Christianity = the size of the population that has followed Christianity and has believed in Jesus

Grew to the size it is now = the size of the population that follows Christianity and believes in Jesus

Think of the time scale involved = thousands of years

and the people involved = billions served, the size of the population that follows Christianity

how grand a scheme it is to fool billion's of people for thousands of years = YES!, as well as billions of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus ... Your argument also proves that Muhammad, Buddha, Vishnu and the rest WERE JUST AS REAL AND JUST AS TRUE.

If you don't see what you said after that silly spelling it out for you, I can't help you any further.

You're just denying the implications of what you said, because you didn't think it all the way through.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Ummmm WHAAAT? LOLOLOLOLOL

You cannot take FRAGMENTS from entire PARAGRAPHS and entire SENTENCES and simply piece them together and make it mean what you want it to mean...THAT IS COMPLETELY CRAAAZY. There is a thing called READING COMPREHENSION that I think you should look into....

I mean, it is extremely unlikely that a movement on the scale of Christianity began thousands of years ago and grew to what it is now based on nothing else but a fictitious individual...

How is that in any way shape or form saying that "millions of people over thousands of years believe in it so it must be true"...This is just ludicrous, outlandish...most ridiculous picture of cherry picking I HAVE EVER SEEN...

I don't know how else I can word it in PLAIN OLE ORDINARY ENGLISH....but what I said is very clear....Again, in no way shape or form did I imply that "the size of the followers for the length of time = TRUE" ....I said that a CONSPIRACY or COUP based on a FICTITIOUS individual would not LOGICALLY last for thousands of years and fool billions of people...not with the amount of effort it would take to maintain such a conspiracy...the amount of people that would be involved....

You would need Josephus, Herod, all the scribes pharisees sadducees, the apostles and disciples of Christ...you would need entire populations going along with your scheme for it to work...You would need to doctor records and create fictional events...You would need it to correlate to original OT messianic prophecies....You would need romans and jews alike...Then later on you would need to put to death any people that ended up believing in your made up little BS....or you would need to die for it yourself....

How do you not see how Jesus HAD to be a real entity....whether or not he was the Son of God and did the miracles...I really couldn't give 2 rats farts less if you believe....but ATLEAST FOR THE SAKE OF ALL INTELLECTUAL BEINGS EVERYWHERE....PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE....do not deny that a REAL HISTORICAL FIGURE is at the very center of Christianity...

A2D

And on another note...maybe you want to look at quotes more carefully...

I mean, it is extremely unlikely that a movement on the scale of Christianity began thousands of years ago and grew to what it is now based on nothing else but a fictitious individual...

Excuse me if I'm wrong here, but when I say "extremely unlikely" I mean a very high probability...not ABSOLUTELY ENTIRELY TRUE...YADA YADA YADA...you're freakin insane dude

reply to post by Gryphon66


In ALL my posts, have I not said that it is MORE PROBABLE, or MORE LIKELY....or anything similar to that?
Have I EVER said "that means it's true"?

In EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY POSTS, I have been trying to explain to you why believing that Christianity is based on a REAL entity is MORE LOGICAL(according to Occam's razor) than believing that Christianity is a hoax based on a FICTITIOUS entity...

Not one single time have I said that it is NOT POSSIBLE that it is a hoax. Not one single time have I said that I'm entirely accurate and what I say is FACT. Not one single time have I mentioned 100% TRUTH.

I don't have the hardcore facts. I don't have 100% truth. I don't know what is and isn't possible. I can only access what is MORE PROBABLE or LESS PROBABLE using this trusty little cluster of matter inside my skull...

Again, just because I don't know how many freakin times it's going to take to get this point across...
believing that Christianity is based on a REAL entity is MORE LOGICAL(according to Occam's razor) than believing that Christianity is a hoax based on a FICTITIOUS entity...

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

No, he got you trying to pull off an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

"So many people believe it so it must be true" is not us using our brains a little bit more around here.

A2D:

I quoted you, word for word, in my first post. Your original post is still in the discussion. After that, I broke it down further for you, to the point of absurdity, and you went over the moon and started sputtering in ALL CAPS. Touched a nerve.

If Christianity is true because it still exists and because no one could pull off such an "elaborate hoax" for so long, then so is Islam, and Mohammed is God's Last Prophet, and so is Buddhism, and Shakyamuni is the Enlightened One, and so is Hinduism and 33 Million Gods are all real ... because Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism have existed for so long and have so many members who believe that THEY MUST BE TRUE.

There's your faulty argument. It doesn't have anything to do with Occam. Occam requires "the least multiplication of entities." Really, and at this point I'm beginning to sympathize with you, you couldn't have chosen a poorer strategy to make your point. Stated another way, Occam says that "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Your argument, and the argument of many scholars whose livelihood or belief depends on it, is that Jesus must have existed because we have Christianity. That's an ASSUMPTION. And a logically fallacious one as Daskakik points out. The hypothesis with the least assumptions is that Jesus did not exist. Even if Jesus didn't exist, we can still have Christianity, unless you want to acknowledge the reality of a multitude of other deities who all have extensive stories about them from ancient times, who all have billions of modern followers, etc., etc., etc.

The simplest assumption wins.

Who started Christianity? Who wrote the books? The same scholar that says that Jesus must be real ALSO says that almost half of the New Testament is FORGED. Didn't you pick up on that? That's the explanation, dropping all subtlety, A2D.

The simplest answer is not that a magic god-man, or even some misunderstood itinerant preacher, was erased from history; the simplest answer is that He didn't exist and that people lie and make stuff up for their own agendas all the time, every day from the 1st century until now.

That parsimony also explains the whole thing. That's Occam.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDED IN EDIT: I don't believe that Occam's Razor is the single arbiter of all logical truth. A2D founded their argument on Occam, and so, Occam it is for the counter-argument. It's not the best tool to use in the search for the truth about Jesus; it's one tool of many.

Why? Here's the truth about Jesus. We don't know. We don't have enough evidence. Any position other than that is based on belief. Positions based on belief are not inherently wrong, but they are weaker than those based on evidence, and that's just logic; that's just the way we think.

reply to post by texastig


A Surfeit of Jesuses!

– But No "Jesus of Nazareth"

texastig

Krazysh0t
A couple decades after his death leaves a LOT of room for embellishment.

Decades in ancient terms is great. Historians look for information close to the source. Why? Because that means there was no myths or fables about the Bible because people were still alive that had seen Jesus as Paul the Apostle writes about in
1 Corinthians 15:6

BS! This is the most well documented age in history and we have disputes on people like Elvis' life. A couple decades after Jesus lived gives time for MANY of the people who knew him to die off. People didn't live that long back then. The closest account of Jesus' life is SEVENTY years after his death. I'd be safe in saying that just about EVERYONE who knew Jesus had died off and anyone that was still alive would be too old to really put up a resistance to the lies being spread.

Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Again, all I asked for is your explanation of how Christianity came to be from a FICTITIOUS entity....

And at the very same time you claim many "Messiahs", REAL INDIVIDUALS MIND YOU, popped up all the time...Couldn't JESUS OF NAZARETH be one of those REAL INDIVIDUALS?

A2D

It's quite easy to start a religion about someone whose life has been embellished greatly. Keep in mind that the people back then were VERY superstitious, so if someone came to your town talking about a man (that you've never met) who, while he was alive, performed great feets, you'd be more apt to believe him back then.

Look at Joseph Smith, anyone who is a non-Morman looks at the account of how he "found" the Morman testament as completely silly, yet he STILL managed to start a religion around it and there are many believers. If his account wasn't so hotly contested by non-believers because we were all more superstitious, I'd say that Mormanism could have grown MUCH larger than it has (and it is still pretty large). Scientology is another good example of stupid people being duped by lies.

Logarock
Some christians point to Leviticus on these issues even though they are confirmed in the new testament.

Where are these things in the NT????

What is not confirmed in the new testament is stoning people to death, but the sin remains.

Which sins and when did God change his mind about the punishment?

You may not realize this but in bringing this to the point you are doing what the Pharisees did by bringing the adulteress before Him for stoning. Trying to test him on matters of the law.

Funny how you supplied no quotes to back what you claimed.