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

reply to post by BO XIAN

I'm happy to insult absurd notions, beliefs, hypotheses.

I don't see anything "absurd" about doubting the scriptures' credibility. They are full of absurd notions, beliefs, and hypotheses. Which have been doubted and debated and dismissed by multitudes over the eons.

Earlier, I said I 'have no dog in this fight' - but the truth is, I do - insofar as people carry a verbal bludgeon to shame and cast out those with more open minds. or more dangerously, children. Religion is for adults. Kids should not be 'indoctrinated' into one set of dogma, but allowed to use their unique intelligence and talents and taught critical thinking.

The stories in the Bible are stories. They are stories that include some very absurd hypotheses.

Believe it or not, there are many ways to achieve 'enlightenment'. Most of the American public agrees on that, and that goes for other religious people as well aside from Christians.

I firmly believe there are many roads to reach the Unity. Anger, contempt, disdain, and humiliation are counter-productive.

BO XIAN, I'm curious in a small way, as a side note to the conversation, given that you note that your style is based on "giving as good as you get" ... I wonder how you square that behavior with the fairly specific instructions of your Lord and Savior Jesus Of Nazareth called Christ:

"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ...
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous," (Matthew 5:38-39, 44-45)

reply to post by Gryphon66


I fail to live up to His standard in lots of ways.

I will endeavor on this thread to do better.

Thanks for all the feedback.

Sigh.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Darkened minds are not very open to enlightenment. Nor do they seem to WANT to be.

Have you ever considered that it might be your mind that is darkened?

You don't "seem to WANT to be" enlightened to other modes of thinking. I just have to wonder: why?
These people are making good sense, and this thread has brought together some very GOOD minds....

BO XIAN
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

I fail to live up to his standard in lots of ways.

I will endeavor on this thread to do better.

Thanks for all the feedback.

Sigh.

Thanks for your response. I only asked because it seemed to me that everyone here, while exhibiting heat of their own for their positions, was responding directly and reasonably.

reply to post by wildtimes


I HAVE wandered those paths in earlier decades and found them exceedingly wanting, empty, hollow, wrong, false, deceptions, destructive, etc.

It's not rational to continue to seek water from a dry well.

reply to post by BO XIAN

I HAVE wandered those paths in earlier decades and found them exceedingly wanting, empty, hollow, wrong, false, deceptions, destructive, etc.

So? You would begrudge others making their own journey??

You found what works for you. That doesn't mean it will work for everyone, and you ought to know that, being as you are a "psychologist". Each to his own.

We all have dignity, and we all are capable of navigating life in our unique way.

Big deal: you wandered those paths, and found them wanting. That doesn't mean everyone else will come out of it equally disenchanted.


"Wrong, false" is a judgment call - did your wanderings give you authority to criticize those still wandering?

I think not.

reply to post by BO XIAN


I am sorry for your loss and I understand your frusrtation, Sorry if I offended your beliefs, no hard feelings I hope.

I thought that been here, you wouldn't have a problem to discuss and argue about the subject.
I find it very ''healthy'' that people can talk, question and discuss religious subjects, something that was a taboo some decades ago, and a death sentence with tortures a few centuries ago.

Since in todays world the church and the religious societies have a very big part in political decisions, and other social issues, aspects of which affect atheists as well since we live in the same society.

So I believe the reason, the ''truth'' that gave the church its power, and motivates christians in various social acts that affect societies and guide our spiritual evolution as humanity should be a debatable subject by all members of society, because atheists too have every right to question this truth, without that act been a ''blasphemy''.

After all most atheists were raised religious and then they found on their own, the path of questioning widely established beliefs.

reply to post by wildtimes


Oh, Really?

Soooooooooooooooooooo . . . .

Discovering a light switch . . . and experimenting with its effective functioning at midnight

evidently cannot justifiably result

in your construction on reality

in noticing that the switch in one position results in light and in the opposite position results in continued darkness.

Sweet.

My construction on reality is different.

It would be irresponsible for me to characterize destruction and darkness as wonderful or even neutral.

reply to post by Dr1Akula


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

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.

imho, none of that precludes calling a stinking pile a stinking pile.

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.


Sure mileage may vary.

I'm responsible for declaring my realities, perspectives and beliefs.

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.

reply to post by wildtimes


The notion that there IS NO objective right or wrong

is a lie, a seduction, a deception literally from the pit of hell.

I don't give that idiocy much quarter.

reply to post by BO XIAN

in noticing that the switch in one position results in light and in the opposite position results in continued darkness.

Sweet.

My construction on reality is different.

It would be irresponsible for me to characterize destruction and darkness as wonderful or even neutral.

What the hell are you talking about?

Were you delving into the "black arts"? Bo, there are MANY religious sentiments that have nothing...
no
thing
...to do with summoning demons and stirring up dark powers. Why on earth would you leap to that, when we are only discussing the freedom we have as individual thinkers to decide for ourselves if "the Bible is true"???

I'm thoroughly confused.. But, today is probably not an ideal day to talk to you.
Again - I extend my warmest empathy for your loss. I'm logging off now; and apologize for having disrupted your day.

The Shroud of Turin, evidence of Our Lord's Resurrection. Italian studies done in 2011 give proof.

Secular References to Jesus between the first and fifth centuries:

Josephus
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus
Mara Bar-Serapion
Lucian
Seutonius
Talmudic References
Thallus

Archeological Items and Sites (Take these with a grain of salt)

Shroud of Turin
Nazareth Site
Pieces of the True Cross

tothetenthpower
Not really no.
They are accounts of Jesus written decades after his death.

Jesus existed just as Nero or Caesar existed. The same data is used for everyone. There is nothing wrong with decades in ancient times. The closer to the source is what Historians look for. See this picture:

tothetenthpower
The Gospels are a religious doctrine, not a history book. At least not to those of us who have extensively studied ALL religious doctrine from that era, before than era and beyond.

As Biblical scholar and critic F.F. Bruce writes, “History and theology are inextricably intertwined in the gospel of our salvation, which owes its eternal and universal validity to certain events which happened in Palestine when Tiberius ruled the Roman Empire.”

tothetenthpower
Why is that the most convinced people are the ones who know the least about it?

Because people know that Bible is true and don't have to worry about myths and fairy tales.

tothetenthpower
Ah no, that's just false.

You have done very shoddy work in claiming Jesus and mythical people are the same. If you were smart you would have looked all that stuff up to see if it was true. So I'll do it for you so you won't have to believe in that junk anymore.

DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT ZEITGEIST SAYS.

HORUS [Was before Jesus]:
1. No virgin birth:
There are two separate birth accounts in regards to Horus (neither depict a virgin birth):
Version 1: Hathor, the motherly personification of the milky way, is said to have conceived Horus but we are told her husband, Ra, was an Egyptian sun god. Hathor (a sky goddess) was represented by the cow whose milk brought forth the milky way. By the will of her husband Ra, she gave birth to Horus:

"I, Hathor of Thebes, mistress of the goddesses, to grant to him a coming forth into the presence [of the god]... Hathor of Thebes, who was incarnate in the form of a cow and a woman."
www.sacred-texts.com...
www.pantheon.org...

Version 2: When we examine Isis as Horus' mother, we are told Isis was not a virgin, but the widow of Osiris. Isis practices magic to raise Osiris from the dead so she can bear a son that would avenge his death. Isis then becomes pregnant from the sperm of her deceased husband. Again, no virgin birth occurs:
"[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [penis] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [sperm], and she made there from an heir [Horus]."
www.sacred-texts.com...
www.pantheon.org...

2. No evidence any stars are mentioned in the birth of Horus.

3. There were no Kings. There were wise men that came to see Jesus. (You should read the Bible more closely.)

4. Jesus was not born on Dec 25th. So there goes your theory for that. (You should read the Bible more closely.)

5. Horus never became a teacher at age 12, it's not found in any accounts of Horus.

6. No accounts of Horus starting a ministry at the age of 30.

7. No account of Horus having 12 disciples.
This claim finds its origin in the work of Gerald Massey (Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, book 12), which points to a mural depicting “the twelve who reap the harvest.” But Horus does not appear in the mural.
From: www.jonsorensen.net...

8. Since Horus didn't have 12 disciples they couldn't have traveled with him.

9. No evidence that he was known as the truth or good shepard .

10. No traces that he was betrayed.

11. No traces that he was crucified.

12. No traces of being buried for three days.

13. No traces of resurrection.

14. So as we can see there's no parallel between Horus and Jesus.

ATTIS [Was after Jesus]
1. Again Jesus was not born on the 25th of December.

2. Attis was conceived from an almond seed which fell from a tree as a result of Zeus' spilled semen.
From: thedevineevidence.com...

3. Crucifixion: Attis castrates himself beneath a pine tree after he is made to go insane before his wedding
by Agdistis when the he-she becomes enamoured with him. His blood flows onto the ground from his severed organ and brings forth a patch of violets. Critics try to associate Attis' death beneath a tree with Jesus' death on a "tree." They also try to connect Jesus' blood pouring from his wounds with Attis' blood flow caused by his auto-castration.
From: thedevineevidence.com...

4. Buried for three days. There is no information for that.

5. Resurrection: Attis castrated himself and fled into the forest, where he bled to death. As J. Gresham Machen points out, "The myth contains no account of a resurrection; all that Cybele [the Great Mother goddess] is able to obtain is that the body of Attis should be preserved, that his hair should continue to grow, and that his little finger should move."
From: www.alwaysbeready.com...

KRISHNA
[The fact is that whatever has been written down about him was recorded after the time of Jesus. www.evidenceforchristianity.org... ]
1. No virgin birth :
Krishna was the EIGHTH incarnation of the god Vishnu.
This stands in sharp contrast to the Christian narrative, where the birth of Jesus represents the only incarnation of God. This incarnation was not a routine/commonplace event either. To claim equality with God was a serious offense, as the Jews demonstrated [See John 8].
"Vishnu." Encyclopedia Mythica. www.pantheon.org...
www.blackapologetics.com...

2. There is no mention of a star in the east signaling his birth in the literature.
From: conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

3. He probably had disciples.

4. He was never crucified, buried for 3 days and resurrected:
“A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking [Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey.” Mahabharata, Book 16, 4
From: www.sacred-texts.com...

I don't have enough characters left to continue with the rest of the myths. Please see this page for the rest:
thedevineevidence.com...

reply to post by BO XIAN

The notion that there IS NO objective right or wrong
is a lie

I don't think there is no objective 'right or wrong'. (EDIT TO CLARIFY by removing double negative that might be misconstrued by those without a firm grasp of grammar )....I believe there is an objective 'right' and 'wrong'.

I never said that there wasn't, and from what I read of this thread, no one here is saying that, either.


Do you see how you are projecting???

windword
Why do Christian apologists lie about facts? Outside of the Bible, there is NO PROOF of the existence of Jesus Christ. There are no contemporary records of his life and teachings until well after his, supposed, death.

There is no proof of the existence of Nero, Caesar, etc... outside of the writings about them. Why are you holding to a double standard?
Saul of Tarsus was a contemporary of Jesus. He became Paul the Apostle and wrote about Christ.

windword
The supposed writings of Josephus on existence of Jesus have been proven to be bogus forgeries.

Not according to the Josephus Scholar, Steve Mason. And I will quote him again:

"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)

reply to post by texastig

There is no proof of the existence of Nero, Caesar, etc... outside of the writings about them.

Of course there is! We have Caesar's own writings and diaries, we have the records from the Senate and coins minted. There is an abundance of irrefutable proof for the existence of these people. The same standards that are set for proving the existence of the Caesars and Nero are the same proof that deny, or t the very least, leave gaping questions as to the existence of a character called Jesus the Nazarene. But the is ZERO evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a figure that was created centuries after the fact, by the Roman Catholic Church.

Not according to the Josephus Scholar, Steve Mason. And I will quote him again:

Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering.

You can quote him all you like, however, like most Christian apologetics, he is intellectually dishonest. The above statement is not only dishonest, it's an out and out lie.

Gryphon66
The "bibliographical test" is a concept created for Christian apologetics by Christian apologists. The only "historians" who use the "bibliographical test" are those who intend to make their rationalizations sound formal or more academic. Use your favorite search engine to find references for the "bibliographical test" and you will find that out of first 100 or so hits, 100 are at Christian apologetics sites -- "for believers by believers."

I don't think you looked at Google close enough.
In his book, "Introduction in Research in English Literary History", C. Sanders, Associate Professor of Military History sets forth three tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism. These tests are:
1. Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
2. Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
3. External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).
It might be noteworthy to mention that Sanders is a professor of military history, not a theologian. He uses these three tests of reliability in his own study of historical military events.
You can see it here:
ia600508.us.archive.org...
Page 195

The Bible is reliable!!!!
www.probe.org...

windword
"Anointed" means smeared with oil. Except for some random woman performing an erotic massage with expensive perfume, her hair and her tears on Jesus' feet, to the horror of his disciples, Jesus was never officially anointed by anyone or through any ritual.

You are wrong again.
What is the difference of Jesus being anointed and we being anointed?

In the Old Testament meshiach ( "Messiah" is a derivative) means anointed. The phrase "ha meschiach," means THE anointed one, it refers to a single specific figure which the Jewish people were waiting for as prophesied in the Scripture. (One accurate scribe said that all of Scripture was but a commentary on Messiah.) Christ (Christos) in Greek means anointed.

"Christ" can mean anointed in a general sense, there are many that were anointed. Satan before he fell was called the anointed Cherub (a certain type of angel). Ezek 28:14-15 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.

Anointed means to be sanctified, set apart for a task or a position by God. We find this same word used anointed in the Old Testament used for prophets, priests and kings, judges. They were often temporarily anointed, empowered to do their task. These offices were types that pointed to Jesus, the anointed one. He is the only one who fulfills all the offices; He came as a prophet, He is now functioning as our high priest and when He returns He will become judge and function as our king. Today we are all anointed priests who are able to bring people to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, our high priest through the message of the gospel.

The word Christ means anointed (one), when it says Jesus Christ it is in reference to His person as only one true Christ, who was born without sin, the God/man (Lk.2:11)

The New Testament speaks of THE Christ, referring to Jesus as a particular person anointed like no other. He is called the “Only begotten Son.” The singular God-man sent to become the sacrifice that enabled men to be redeemed of their sin and to reclaim our world from sins affect and Satan’s rule for the only one deserving to rule and reign over it.

Jesus began his ministry by reading from the Scripture as proof of who he is:

Luke 4:17-21 “And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

(The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me- is his anointing) Acts 10:38 “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”

Isa 11:1-5 “There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. His delight is in the fear of the LORD, and He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, nor decide by the hearing of His ears; But with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; he shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt of His loins, and faithfulness the belt of His waist.”

Jesus is the only anointed man who was able to function with the fullness of the Spirit.

Col. 1:19 “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell.” Col. 2:9 “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” This anointed one was God. Heb 1:9-10 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Acts 10:38 “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”

We, the Church are also anointed. We receive the same Holy Spirit by believing in the anointed one (the God-man) and His Gospel (Eph.1:13). He is the head of the church and we are connected to him as the body by his Spirit. Everyone who is born again is part of the body of Christ and shares the same anointing. The Spirit lives in us, comes upon us for service, and we are able to influence others lives by his working.

The apostles taught, 2 Corinthians 1:21: “Now he which establishes with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God; who has also sealed us, and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” All who are in Christ are anointed together -- all of us were given the same Holy Spirit, as a down payment of the resurrection. The Spirit will work through us his gifts to fulfill God’s calling in each of our lives

There are just a few places that speak of the believers anointing in the New Testament. It is not a term that is often used

I Jn. 2:20 “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.” The all things is in reference to distinguishing the truth from error.

I Jn. 2:27-28 “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” In other words the Holy Spirit who is like an umpire will call out what is false and quicken to us what is true, if we are listening and are trained by his word.

The Holy Spirit is our personal teach who who will reveal what the word means as we rightly divide the word of truth1 Cor 2:13 “…which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

we are anointed to share the life of Christ, the gospel with others so they have an opportunity to come into His kingdom. Phile 1:6 “that the sharing of your faith may become effective by the acknowledgment of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.”

From: www.letusreason.org...

Dr1Akula

MamaJ

Will you show me quotes of the gospel writers calling him God.

I would say they thought of him as all others did who foretold of his coming. King, Priest, Lord, Anointed one, Son of God, Son of Man, Christ..... Jesus did not equate himself with God.

Since I was raised as christian by fundamentalists I know that Church (at least the orthodox one) accepts
the Holy three; Father, Son and Holy spirit, but anyway...
Thinking of him as the son God still proves my point that they were biased and thus their writings are not reliable.

MamaJ
And... if you go back and re read what I said about Logos and how it could be another term ( modern to those days) as Christ, you may see where I'm coming from. Maybe not... as we are seeing things different per our perspective and research.

The "word" made in the flesh/reality = Christ = Logos.

I liked your thinking, although it might sound a bit heretic to christians. Either you accept Him as an idea, a philosophy, or as an actual person. In my oppinion these two can't come together.

Well, the scriptures do not say that. I wanted to see you back up what you were saying...

It seems this whole time you are not backing up your thoughts.. I want you too so I can understand your pov.

It seems scattered, or maybe it's just me. I could care less what the Christian thinks of my philosophy.

I am not a Christian however I know it in and out. I can accept he was real, not God, accept his philosophy, accept he was also an idea created. There are layers within the Logos.