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

Chamberf=6
Another thing that really bugs me about the Jesus story;
There is a 2 decade silence of his doings. Wouldn't his disciples and followers ask about his past? Was the Messiah so boring for 20 years that there is nothing noteworthy??

They probably did but it's not that important. What is important is that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead and that is what they wrote about.

Chamberf=6
And accounts of his birth must just be hearsay, since the two gospel writers mentioning it weren't there...

Mary was still alive. Elisabeth her cousin was still alive. All they had to do is go interview them like the news people interview people of today.

Chamberf=6
AND the new testament books were written 70 to 100 years after Jesus lived anyway, so books names may well have just been attributed to people who never even wrote them --with even more hearsay.

It was 25 years (Galatians) to AD 97 (Revelation).

bitsforbytes
reply to post by stevcolx

 

You watched Zetgeist and swallowed everything that was fed to you.

No. I did say earlier that I was not a big fan of Zeitgeist. I looked elsewhere!

reply to post by texastig


All your examples have been handily debunked, time and time again.

Josephus citations have been regarded as forgeries by scholars. Why do Christians need lies to reinforce their beliefs?

Tacitus and Suetonius were not referring to followers of Jesus the Nazarene. Chrestus cults were around long before the advent of Jesus and were pagan.

Nero blamed and punished the Jews for Rome's woes, and it was the Jews that were required to pay for the reconstruction after the fire. Jews were the ones who refused to bow down to Roman authority and Roman deities. Christians and Jews would have been indistinguishable to Nero, and the followers of Jesus were not called Christians, but "Nazarenes" at the time.

I'm not sure if posted yet;

but, according to the calendar we use-

Jesus died 2,000 years ago- or thereabouts?

Why the calendar years begin back then?

I'd better get to readin' so I can...

C21H30O2I
Jesus of Nazareth' supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity the first century of the Christian era yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky.

Is there a compelling reason he SHOULD be mentioned in non-christian sources? Putting the shoe on the other foot, I find mention of a slave named "Spartacus" in Roman sources, and mention in those same sources that over 6,000 of that slave's followers were crucified along the Appian Way. It's strange indeed that there is no mention of that individual in Christian sources. If this "Spartacus" fellow ever actually existed, why are the Christian sources entirely silent on that incident?

Could it be that people write about what is known to them, and write less about what is obscure or unknown to them?

All references including the notorious insertions in Josephus, stem from partisan Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion).

Wait just a minute there! Didn't you just say above that there ARE no non-christian references? How can both that statement and THIS one (that those nefarious christians worked their lies into the non-christian sources) be true? If there are no references, then there is of course no point in dismissing those (non-existent) references as "spurious additions" - they don't exist to be explained away for summary dismissal, do they? Or DO they?

Which is it?

The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-purposed for the needs of the early Church.

You know, I like you. I think it was sheer genius to work that christian catch-phrase into the discussion, and use their own terminology against them!

The name Jesus is actually a 16th century creation.

"Jesus" has its origins in יהושוע (Yehoshua or Joshua) in which the first part "yeho" refers to God. The name means "YHWH helps". But it was a name to be used with care and to prevent accidental voicing of the name of God, Yehoshua got truncated to ישוע (Y'shua), or, in the Galilee, to Yeshu.

Transliterated into Greek, Yeshu became Ἰησοῦς (Iesous), and from that, the Latin Iesus. A late development was the letter J which was then substituted for the initial capital I rendering Iesus into Jesus.

That argument is like saying that I don't exist today, because whatever the cognate of my name would be in Andamanese 1600 years into the future is not what people call me here when they see me walking down the street. It's like saying that if my name is "John", which transliterates to Spanish (now) as "Juan", but may be "Gainomah" in Andamanese 1600 years into the future, I must not exist now because no one says "Hiya Gainomah!" when I passed them in the street this morning.

Hell, even contemporary Hispanics don't call me by my name - they call me "Jeem", and that ain't a stand-in for "Jim", either. Does that mean I don't exist?

A trial for Jesus, when suspected rebels were habitually arrested and executed by the Romans without trial? Philo of Alexandria (On the embassy to Gaius, XXXVIII) speaks of Pilate's 'continual murders of people untried and uncondemned.'

I suppose that really doesn't apply to Pilate saying "I find no fault in this man" - and then proceeding to have him executed anyhow. Nope, no bearing at all...

A century earlier, after the 'slave revolt' led by Spartacus, 6,000 prisoners were thus crucified along the Via Appia between the cities of Rome and Cappua, as a gruesome deterrent to further rebellion. Doubtless the corpses were left on their crosses to rot or to provide food for wild beasts and birds of prey.

See above. I have shown, by your own logic, that this "Spartacus" character never existed. He's only mentioned in Roman sources. Not even the Thracians know of him, and he's supposed to have been born and raised among them. Since no one else ever heard of him, he never was. In support of that contention, the Roman sources themselves specify that Spartacus' body was never found, despite a diligent search. Romans seem to have had a hard time keeping dead bodies from disappearing, eh? Maybe he resurrected and walked back to Thrace...

And do you expect to see any proof of your existence in a few hundred years?
Though I'm sure you see the signs of the times we are in by now.
Can't wait

C21H30O2I
Good reading but so is the cat in the hat

There is no historical evidence for the cat in the hat. There is more historical evidence for the Bible than any other ancient literature.

C21H30O2I
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.

They knew about Jesus being born to a virgin because Jesus was sinless. There is nothing wrong with them not writing down the nativity scene. They didn't write down if Jesus was picking his nose. Don't be so picky.

C21H30O2I
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.

It's not a tale. It is fact. Jesus was sinless, born of a virgin. Died and was buried and rose from the grave according to the scriptures which includes prophesy of Him. It is logical and rational.

If Jesus is not real then who the hell has been mowing my lawn these last 18 months!!!??

C21H30O2I

It is exhausting dealing with Holy Rollers. Hardheadedness, and well, blind faith isn't proof of nothing.... t

You're absolutely right blind faith ISN'T proof of nothing - nor is it proof of anything

See what I did there?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

signalfire
"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.

That's not true. There's been scholars from back in the 1800's that didn't believe Jesus was real.
Not all scholars toe the party line. I know of six of them that don't and no one is punishing them.

dollukka
Flavius Josephus aka Josef ben Mathitjahu is not quite trusted source.

From Glenn Miller at the Christianthinktank.com
"Let me also just mention something about the Josephus issue. Every now an then I get an email about someone abjectly 'dismissing' the data from Josephus, without even interacting with the data and the positions of solid scholars. This is inappropriate. By far and away, the bulk of modern scholarship accepts that Josephus makes two independent references to Jesus--to argue otherwise requires the objector to dismantle the historical consensus, and this requires argumentation instead of simple assertion (and disallowance of Josephus as a witness!). One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus."
He writes:
"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)

"Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. if the laudatory version in Eusebius and our text of Josephus were the free creation of Christian scribes, who then created the more restrained versions found in Jerome, Agapius, and Michael? The version of Agapius is especially noteworthy because it eliminates, though perhaps too neatly, all of the major difficulties in the standard text of Josephus. (a) It is not reluctant to call Jesus a man. (b) It contains no reference to Jesus' miracles. (c) It has Pilate execute Jesus at his own discretion. (d) It presents Jesus' appearance after death as merely reported by the disciples, not as fact. (e) It has Josephus wonder about Jesus' messiahship, without explicit affirmation. And (f) it claims only that the prophets spoke about "the Messiah," whoever he might be, not that they spoke about Jesus. That shift also explains sufficiently the otherwise puzzling term "Messiah" for Josephus' readers. In short, Agapius' version of the testimonium sounds like something that a Jewish observer of the late first century could have written about Jesus and his followers." (p.172)

"It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus' existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings." (p.174f)

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

There is no historical proof of that.

Liquesence
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.

No historical proof for that.

C21H30O2I
And ok, his deeds weren't documented till after the fact

All deeds are documented after the fact. You can't document deeds that haven't been done yet becuase no deeds had been done.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Right, you think my argument is that because millions believe I believe. I understand that you know one of the sophism of Socrates.

But when written accounts exist speaking of Jesus, which some of those accounts belong to the bible canon and some don't. I repeat some don't. You just can't say that he didn't exist.

windword
Certainly, Jesus Christ never existed.

Then no other persons of antiquity existed either. Because the same data used for persons of antiquity is the same that is used for Jesus.

reply to post by Scope and a Beam


Long time reader first time post. The fact that there is very little evidence outside of the bible is actually logical and supports Christianity’s foundation. The reasoning is that if you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, then you must also believe in the rebellion in heaven. What this actually means is that as per scripture, the coming of Christ was foretold and the fallen angels and their leader knew and wanted to prevent such event. This means that even after the fact (Jesus being born), fallen angels would try and destroy all evidence of Jesus and one has to remember that this world ever since the rebellion in heaven has been a sort of prison and kingdom of the fallen angels. It is logical that if there is an army of “opposers” working in the same space and time but outside of our reality and given the story where told, then it is logical that the only surviving evidence for his existence would be the bible a sacred protected “document” that has survived many, many attempts to eradicate throughout history.

texastig

IkNOwSTuff
Worshiping Jesus, praying towards a cross IS idol worship

Worshiping Jesus is fine. We find Thomas worshiping Him and calling Him my Lord and my God. John 20:28.
We worship Him because He is worthy of worship.

I think Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Eddie Murphy, CK Lewis and Paul Roos worthy of worship but it doesnt change the fact that all of them are men and its kinda pointless.

God is God, Commandment 1 "thoult shall have no other gods before me"
If Jesus is god as your edited and re-edited, written after the fact book says why not just pray to god?
Fine focus on Jesus but why the need to include him in prayers?

To me praying to Jesus (Another god) and a cross (an icon) while still claiming to be good god fearing "christians" are perfect examples of religions robbing people of common sense and rational thought.

It almost seems to me like Christianity was set up as a mockery of your gods laws
Demon 1 "hey I bet I can get people into a religion that claims to be about god while completely disregarding his 1st 2 laws"
Demon 2 "Nah it will never happen"
Demon 1 "wanna bet? Im gonna call it Christianity"

Follow the message of Jesus and the rest is irrelevant, pray to Jesus and according to the rules Jesus followed your going to hell!!!!

But then again since its all BS anyway do what you like

tsingtao

IkNOwSTuff

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

Worshiping Jesus, praying towards a cross IS idol worship

you think christians are muslims?

Honestly I dont see too much difference,

I find moderate Christians and Muslims nice people and then you get the ones who are so convinced of their own rightness and superiority it just turns me off it all completely.

Religion to me is like sexuality, keep it to yourself and we can all get along

It's hard for me to understand why we are even going back and forth with the "real vs unreal".

IF ( BiG IF) you study and compare religions/myths and lay them all out the seeker will find many similarities.

IF ( ANOTHER BIG IF) WE ALL go BACK to the very beginning of thoughts written down about the nature of all things including but not limited to God, Son of Man, and Spirit we will ALL FIND that there are so many similarities one cannot deny what is revealed.

Who in your own personal mind has been the great thinkers of our time and times past? What did their studies reveal to them?

For instance.. Carl Jung....In 1944 Jung published Psychology and Alchemy, where he analyzed the alchemical symbols and showed a direct relationship to the psychoanalytical process. He argued that the alchemical process was the transformation of the impure soul (lead) to perfected soul (gold), and a metaphor for the individuation process.

This above is not some new age thought... it's actually really ancient and can be found in the Key's of Solomon and the Books of Enoch to name two references but I am sure there is more. Back then they were not supposed to make anything from lead or use lead as it was "impure". Temples certainly could not contain or be built with lead.

Lead, is said by some, to change our cells and create cancer.

Another great thinker was Manly Hall. How in the world did he know so much about so much of our history and the human being all the way to our core? Not only did he teach himself but he delivered lecture after lecture and wrote hundreds of books. One of the Books was for the Freemasons. Hmmm... what did he conclude with all the wisdom he most certainly had?

Researching celestial scribes and their mentors, angels, etcc.. takes so much time but it's well worth it for the hungry soul who seeks more light of truth.

This link is a long read, but well worth it. For the ones in need of homework on this subject, Manly can break the history down for us in a way like no other. Don't believe me? Read it. www.manlyphall.org...

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Appeal to the mass is one of the logical vises that was noted by Socrates and Plato. However, using the logic that some display in this thread, Socrates probably didn't exist since no proof really exists about him except what his students wrote about him and a statue (statures are just as easily created from imagination).

Do you believe in Socrates?