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

jed001

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

Namaste

i don't buy into the one path to salvation

what if a man was born was a good person and lived a good life life but never knew of your God would he still go to heaven ?

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)

And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. (Luke 12:47-48)

Gryphon66
reply to post by reject

 

The word "debunker" is not magical. It doesn't just make the facts go away. I am not "debunking" anything.

The facts of early Christian symbolism are well-known. The scholarship is considerable.

The "cross" was not used in the first century. Fish, anchors, a bit later the chi-rho ... but not crosses.

You're merely trying to muddy the water here. The facts are clear.

The first century ossuaries may be early Christian, but the scratches on the outside don't prove it.

reject

Just because it was "universally acknowledged" and "extensively adopted" at later dates doesn't mean it was not used by earlier 1st century Christians when they were just starting out and they were still a persecuted few (as evidenced by archaeology), does it?

You're merely playing "what if" games here. You're making an assumption based on your belief. Do you have any physical evidence, perhaps the archeology you mention, that demonstrates the use of the Cross as a Christian symbol before the end of the 2nd century.

If not, you can always just state that you "believe it to be true," that your "heart tells you it is," instead of pretending that there's physical evidence for baseless claims.

edit on 19Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:40:38 -060014p072014266 by Gryphon66 because: Yeah.

Well your wrong the 1st century christians adopted the cross as a symbol of their religion in the first century archeologists have discovered multiple tombs. It was originally a sign christians used because of their persecution. But even in the second century you see early christian writings using the cross as a symbol of christ. For example Epistle of Barnabas, xi.-xii in chapter xi it specifically mentions the use of the cross with baptisms as a symbol for christ. In fact early Christian had to defend themselves, as early as the second century, against the charge of being worshipers of the cross, as may be learned from Tertullian, "Apologia," xii., xvii. Now its obvious some early christians used the cross and it was known to them, However it wasn't called the crucifix until the fifth century this is what your source is referring to.

jed001

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.

wow such a week argument

I have to agree AD wasnt created until the 6th century until Dionysius Exiguus created his Easter table in 525 AD. Yes i couldnt help using it lol.All this shows is by the sixth century christianity was well established in rome.

reply to post by Scope and a Beam


Because jesus is a stupid myth created for the weak, ignorant and foolish.

Ophiuchus 13
Chronogoblin

Ophiuchus13My thought is, the Christ is not something that is, and then is not. He is something that come repeatedly, like the seasons. When you think about the different religions with similarities throughout, it makes sense that an all-encompassing being would come to the different peoples' in ways that they would be able to relate to. IMO, Jesus was one face of many, like the faces of mankind itself. He appears as he needs to, when he needs to. Or so it seems to me anyways.

I look at him/Jesus as an idea overlay; just like Horus as (JESUS same birth date circumtances of birth by a virgin) or Gilgamesh as Noah. The same history seems to continually play out as definate 'Architypes' throughout time and cultures. Enlil and Enki as the Sumarian brothers of Anu "GOD' are Abraham and Poseidon/Moses (upper lower world sea/land hemispheres). I thought the word "Christ" in Greek meant 'Brother' not savior, so the whole Christ business of labling is vanquished. There are too many overlapping stories of the same events, historical persons to be ignored in their identical telling of history; they seem to be overlays not actual events; an overlay would be a pattern of thought put upon whatever civilization it was to impact or manipulate (we dont even have to go to the Adama Eva story as it is multi-cultural).

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
I thought the word "Christ" in Greek meant 'Brother' not savior, so the whole Christ business of labling is vanquished.

Christ means anointed, not "brother". I'm not sure where you got that from.

link

reply to post by jed001



Wow, what a weak argument comment

reply to post by arpgme


Christ means anointed, not "brother". I'm not sure where you got that from.

It's interesting to note that Jesus was never anointed!

Although some people, in an attempt to legitimize the title bestowed on Jesus after his death, they cite the story of some random woman performing an erotic foot massage with expensive perfumed oil, tears and her hair, as if some random woman's pedicure is the same as Daniel picking of his "horn of oil" and anointing Saul or David.

There is physical proof of Jesus' existence. He is truly present in the form of ordinary bread and wine, His most precious body & blood, at Holy Mass and Holy Communion, for He has said so.

Only Almighty God is to judge the soul.

rickynews
There is physical proof of Jesus' existence. He is truly present in the form of ordinary bread and wine, His most precious body & blood, at Holy Mass and Holy Communion, for He has said so.

And yet it tastes just like ordinary bread and wine and when we test it scientifically we find that it is, in fact, ordinary bread and wine.

reply to post by Scope and a Beam


Two words: Turin shroud.

reply to post by LucidWarrior


Two words - Medieval Fake.

conspiracytheoristIAM
reply to post by jed001

 

Wow, what a weak argument comment

yep, you got me ; that darn spell check

arpgme
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

vethumanbeing
I thought the word "Christ" in Greek meant 'Brother' not savior, so the whole Christ business of labling is vanquished.

arpgmeChrist means anointed, not "brother". I'm not sure where you got that from.

Easy does it there Obiwan; Jesus was NEVER a Christian in the first place, and so could not have identified/concieved himself as THE 'annointed one' to crusade (AS FRONT MAN) to a misguided corrupt religion; (that was Pauls doing). In Middle/Old English brother/means simply a religious affiliation taken from the Greek/Latin Christus (brother in arms or indeterminate). You are finding exactly what you seek to fit your ideaforms and substanciate them based upon what suits your 'current' reasoning. You are not looking at older languages is all and those loosely debated interpretations. There are other keys that open the same lock (a word missrepresented as a finality).

Scope and a Beam
Was Jesus made up?

There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other person in all of ancient history.

The Illuminati worship Lucifer and have been working for over 6,000 years to manipulate the existence of Jesus as a mere myth.

That should be your biggest clue.

Nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.

This is a TON of information about the man we know as Jesus and all of it comes from witnesses who were HOSTILE to the truth claims of Christianity!

Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?

"Here is a fact: There is far more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for virtually anyone in ancient history. Anyone who peddles that “Christ-myth” theory, does NOT do so on the ground of historical evidence. The fact of Jesus Christ in history is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as is the fact of Julius Caesar. Get this straight. It is not historians who promote the “Christ-myth” notion. ...his alleged words and actions were documented by numerous people." LINK

History is a VERY effective form of mind control.

By believing it, not only are you being deceived...

But you are also going to have one HECK of a time sorting out the truth from the lies.

"The falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind" - Rousseau

“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

rickynews
Only Almighty God is to judge the soul.

That would be YOU vs your SOULs progession; I hope you have a speech prepared (or a pre-paid debate coach ready; whispering to you, standing exit stage right).

And Science has all the answers ? Ha ! Now that's a good one.

I would assume it's because Jesus was regarded as a blasphemous criminal and he died a criminals death. The powers/authorities at that time legitimately put him to death under criminal charges...not exactly the kind of guy you would write home about, if you were an academic or affluent historian or writer. Philo (or a similar figure) writing about Jesus would be like a modern day historian writing about any run of the mill child molester you plucked out of a random prison. Thats my humble opinion, anyway...it sounds harsh, I suppose, but I am Christian, and it never ceases to amaze me how HATED Christ was.

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. 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.

So I've been looking online for interesting nuggets of proof, or at least evidence, that Jesus existed. I am not an atheist and I am not trying to rattle religious cages, but I just don't see any hard proof really. It seems weird too that there were supposedly well respected historians who lived in the same time and same area as Jesus, yet they never recorded his supposedly mind blowing acts of miracle.

I know about Flavius Josephus, but he didn't see Jesus first hand either so I'm a bit skeptical of that.

Personally I believe Jesus probably existed, and was effectively a freedom fighter. He was a revolutionary who did great things, like feed poor people when it seemed there was no way to help them. But I don't believe the stories of miracle are literal interpretations. I think they're metaphors. This makes sense to me especially when looking at the Middle East--the culture lends to myths being created and extraordinary stories being passed on as a way to explain something big.

But still, I thought I'd just post to ask what people's opinions were on this? Do you feel all the records were destroyed? Was Jesus made up? Is it just a mix up of us calling him Jesus, when in fact we should be looking for Yeshua? I'm very happy to be proved wrong here and am interested in anyone's theories, so please don't think I'm trying to flame anyone's beliefs.

edit on 1-1-2014 by Scope and a Beam because: (no reason given)

To the OP, I haven't read through this entire thread, but I sure do hope that you were not met with too much resistance. This is an extremely valid question and I think you approached it in a very delicate way. I'm interested to go through the entire thread. I have a pretty awesome book that talks about where we got the canon of the scripture and I feel like it gives some reference to historical proof of Christ, I ought to give it a look and then get back here to shed some light!