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

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
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)



+13 more 
posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
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


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 


I recall a history professor telling the class there are Roman records that discuss Jesus, not his miracles or being the son god, but just a record of his existence just like everyone else at that time.

So there's a place to start for anyone to look.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I believe the Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Jesus from the records of Pilate.

As far as first hand accounts, I do not believe there are first-hand accounts outside of the Bible.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 


According to some, Flavius Josephus did write of Jesus. He did not write the Bible.
Of course, some deny that he wrote about Jesus.

link

I guess I would look at it this way... if Josephus did not actually meet Jesus and that his writings mean nothing because of it, then many historical figures have no proof of existence because no historians writing about them actually met them.
edit on 1-1-2014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Josephus wrote about a "christ", which meant some sort of savior-figure....not necessarily Jesus Christ.
edit on 1-1-2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


+31 more 
posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

As my link shows, many think it was a forgery.
I can't say.
The guy makes a compelling argument though.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

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



Yes, I agree, that's why I do neither and just try to follow the message. I also realize judgement comes from ego and that we are just talking about opinions, though they may seem like truths to us.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
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.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Most scholars agree he was a real person who indeed lived in the era that is described in the Bible and Talmud.

There are other writings that have been found outside the Bible. Some writings actually portray him as one who practiced witchcraft and or sorcery. Others portray him just as his disciples did.

The many accounts that are in the Bible have a theme and this theme is recalled by the authors memory which may or not reflect exactly the same from author to author but they do hold a theme. He was born of a woman, taught love and compassion, had disciples, did great works, was baptized by John and died.

His-story accounts do not deny he is "real". Everything else though, per scholars, is debatable.

Imagine if he were here today. He would probably cause a massive revolt and if he did any kind of magic, we would kill him.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The real Jesus was born in 14 AD and led the revolt against Rome ..He was captured in 70 AD.
google Ralph Ellis /red ice radio for details....

The New Testament Jesus is fiction...Google Joseph Atwill and watch his interviews....

I am not joking...I have researched this in depth .....



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 


Firstly, literacy wasn't common back in the time that Jesus was said to walk the Earth, so there would only be few people that would be capable of recording his activities.

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

Then there's the issue of distance; Jesus was hardly a globetrotter so he wasn't widely known. He never ventured to far off places so much information about him was second hand, told from village to village by passers by. And since many people at the time were illiterate his exploits would've been spread orally like a campfire story, and that would explain the lack of evidence that exists outside the bible.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

MamaJ
Some writings actually portray him as one who practiced witchcraft and or sorcery.

His-story accounts do not deny he is "real". Everything else though, per scholars, is debatable.

Imagine if he were here today.
He would probably cause a massive revolt and if he did any kind of magic,
we would kill him.


History of that era depicts some prophets as Shaman's.
Usually covered in astrological tattoos and partial to 'herbs'
to help them have eyes for which to see.


If some peace loving humanitarian such as this had lived
in today's society -
IMAGINE what the message would be..

edit on 1-1-2014 by HumAnnunaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

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 second that. It's all a baseline on which to start living a productive and peaceful life. If he wasn't real, someone out there had a hell of an imagination and an even better method of conveying it.

Worshipping something like that only puts it on a level higher than yourself, which makes it harder to actually practice in real time. Your focus is on putting it on a pedestal and not putting it into action. That's the biggest problem with that religion in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
The New Testament present two radically different accounts of the nativity.

The Gospel of Matthew tells of the appearance of an angel to Joseph in a dream, urging him to marry his divinely impregnated virgin wife-to-be; of a new star in the sky and wise men from the east; of the flight of the holy family to Egypt and of the massacre of the innocents of Bethlehem. Matthew invokes ancient Jewish prophecy to validate his surreal claims. Shady goings on. The Gospel of Luke mentions none of these dramatic events but instead reports the appearance of an angel to Mary; a worldwide census; the birth in a manger, a choir of angels; adoring shepherds; and a joyful presentation in the Temple. None of this is mentioned by Matthew. He musta forgot.

The lack of mutual support between the two tales, and the fantastic nature of the purported events are insane enough. But what blows the fable clean away from the known universe is the ignorance of any such gibberish by the earliest Christians, whether Matthew's version or the fabrication of Luke. Not Paul, nor any of the epistle writers, know the tale. and the gospels of Mark and John say nothing of the birthing of Jesus either. ok, ok,amnesia must be rampant. Those who should have known most about these wondrous events know least. But then, the fable of the nativity is late and fake and was a necessary step in transforming the righteous hero of Mark's gospel into a demigod and at length into a preexistent co-creator of the universe.

The Birth of Jesus Christ, Competing mythologies, Matthew and Luke

Bethlehem:
Matthew
Mary/Joseph already live in Bethlehem

Luke
Mary/Joseph live in Nazareth
"Worldwide" Census (pretext for birthing in Bethlehem)

Angelic announcements:
to Joseph in dreams to
Mary in visions

Birth:
Birth in house Birth in manger

Celestial sign:
Star in the East Chorus of angels above a sheep pasture

Genealogy:
"42" generations back to Abraham (actually 41 names) 42 generations back to David.Then another 14 generations back to Abraham, and another 21 generations back to God himself.

Royal ancestry:
Lineage accentuates Jewishness Extended ancestry now inclusive of Gentiles.

Adoration:

from Magi
Dream-inspired flight to Egypt
Herod's murder of the innocents
Move to (new home) Nazareth

from Shepherds
Presentation in the Temple; recognised as a "light to the Gentiles" by prophets; Prodigy in the temple at aged 12.
Return to (hometown) Nazareth



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Neither the father or the son are actual people.

They are the two aspects which make the only one - present awareness.
edit on 1-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
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??

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

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.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

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??




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   


TextSo I've been looking online for interesting nuggets of proof, or at least evidence, that Jesus existed.
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 


You are correct in the sense that there is no abundant evidence of Jesus' life. There are several reasons for this. Perhaps you are not privy to the right literature and this literature is not available to most people. There has been a vast undertaking to destroy evidence which was primarily that of the Jews and the Romans. Even though Caiaphus was the high priest in the days of Jesus it was his father in law, Annas, who ruled the entire Judaic organization and was known as the House of Annas. This entire structure was financed through the Jerusalem temple and reaped a fortune for the House of Annas. After the murder of Jesus the House of Annas tried to erase all evidence of this Jesus from all literature available at that time.

Then there were the Romans themselves who were also involved in trying to erase Jesus. The high priest was an appointment of the Roman government and was bought by the highest bidder and most favored by Rome. The reason was twofold. Naturally money was primary because a high tax or tribute was paid to Rome by the Temple authorities. But there were Roman laws which also had to be obeyed. No one in the Roman providence's could be put to death except by the decree of the Roman courts.

Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin of seventy one members and was found not guilty. Therefore He could not be stoned as was the penalty. The House of Annas then, through bribery to Pontius Pilate, had the Romans kill Him. Pilate allowed this murder of Jesus against the Roman courts approval. After Jesus was killed it was also Pilate who wanted this kept quiet but it was revealed to Rome and eventually Pilate was discharged from his position as procurator. Pilate was eventually tried as seditious in the overthrowing of the Caesar and he also was disposed of.

Then we have the Romans who literally destroyed Jerusalem in 69-70 AD and actually plowed up most of Jerusalem. This actually destroyed the first Christian churches historic records except for a meager amount that was saved when they fled Jerusalem. This was the church that the Apostles and disciples of Jesus preached and taught. This was a church of Aramaic and Hebrew liturgy which was their history.

Another attempt was when the Muslims burned the Alexandrian Library of Egypt. Thousands of priceless manuscripts were lost including many of the Christian faith.

As far as physical evidence is concerned, that is more scarce then a hen's tooth. The physicality was that which the Jews concentrated on the most. All evidence of Jesus was to be erased from the face of this earth. That was their determination which failed. You must remember that Jesus had very few years to establish any sort of legacy whatsoever except that which was established through his Apostles in literature.

The finality of this matter is that theology is not proof. If you had proof then you have to move that theory into the factual realm. Not saying that it is not factual but only that some parts of the bible will always be theology and will have to be rejected or accepted by faith. A thousand years from now you could perhaps say the same concerning our culture of today. Every act of every person cannot be proven. There are some parts of the bible which have been proven such as much archaeology but the spiritual parts are still clouded.

I would suggest that you concentrate on the first Christian Jewish Church and its history. That would be the period from the death of Jesus to 70 AD. Those 70 years hold most all of the needed information that a Christian requires. Most Christians are guided from 135 AD and upwards thinking that the Roman gentiles were the central theme of Christianity. when it is far from the truth. A very good place to start is "BibleSearchers.com"





 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join