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

windword
Right. You believe the Bible. I don't, and quoting the Bible to back up what the Bible says isn't proof that the Bible stories are true.

"Evidence for the Bible can take many forms. There is, for instance, physical evidence. We have copies of the manuscripts and throughout history these copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately.

Despite common skeptical claims that the Bible has often been changed through the centuries, the physical evidence tells another story. The New Testament records are incredibly accurate. There are minor differences in manuscripts, called variants, but none of these variants impact or change key Christian beliefs or claims.

Other physical evidence includes archaeological finds. The Archaeological Study Bible presents many notes and articles documenting how archaeology has again and again proven that the Bible does correspond to historical reality.

There are other kinds of evidence that the Bible is true. These have to do with internal consistency and coherence. Although the Bible was written over many centuries by different writers, the messages it contains are coherent and consistent. The Bible presents a coherent theology and worldview and presents this material consistently. Moreover, the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history."
From: www.focusonthefamily.com...

So how did we get here? Something cannot come from nothing. There has to be a Creator because mindless and unguided evolution cannot create complex organisms.

iRoyalty
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

Really? So King Henry VIII didn't create the Church of England and the King James bible so he could sleep with more women? How many other rulers in the past 2000 years have done the same? It's not a hidden fact and the fact that you follow a book that men have altered just means you are following corrupted words.

I'm not against God or Jesus, I think there is a lot of good in there, but to follow it blindly... I don't think that's what God would have wanted.

It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes? (Psalm 118:8-9)

Rulers and man have openly altered text for their own good, the sabboth was altered to convince followers of Mithras to convert. Link

Listen to your own Holy words, do not put faith in a book written by man but in God, worship him in your own way and don't conform to unreliable texts.

edit:

BO XIAN
reply to post by iRoyalty

 

As has been documented, some of the historical record was put to paper within 30-70 years after the events occurred--certainly within the lifetimes of the FIRST HAND EYE-WITNESSES CONCERNED.

Also, I support the existence of Jesus, I just don't support the written word of men, who are easily corrupted especially when confronted with even the smallest amount of power. Also, even first hand witnesses are not reliable and unless either, Jesus wrote it himself, or someone wrote it while he spoke, they are definitely going to be inaccurate, even 30 years later, ever 1 year later, memory is a fickle thing.

edit on 6-1-2014 by iRoyalty because: (no reason given)

No he didnt create the church of england he took it over making himself head by claiming it was a god given right.Also it was not so he could sleep with women trust me didnt need to be divorced to do that. It was because he wanted to marry Anne Bolin And when he asked for an annulment from rome he waited for 6 years without an answer. But this was just the final straw in the conflicts between england and rome. Previous monarchs had already begun the process of removing romes influence people like Henry II and Thomas Becket who made english instead of latin used in church. John wycliff wrote the english bible prior was in latin and had to be taught that way. And then there was Martin Luther of course so many people before Henry started the move he just finished it.

Now as far as text being altered well thanks to the dead sea scrolls we can verify the scriptures used in the bible and those from the first century havnt changed. Most of differences you see is do to translation of the texts from one language to another. Now as far as inaccuracies in the scriptures im sure there is as with anyone writing a story after the events occurred. If you right in your diary at the end of day some facts are going to differ as you reflect on it. But this thread isnt about if the bible was accurate it was asking if proof existed of Jesus and yes it does there is really no historians that will argue he didnt exist. What they argue is if he did the things the bible said he did.

vethumanbeing
Proove it. The Revelations are a fear mongering missive to frighten the CHILD HUMAN into submissiveness.

No, it's not fear mongering. It is telling the future and what will happen to those who do not accept Christ as their Savior. It's giving you a warning to get right with God through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
I work in the computer industry. Everything is setup for the 'Mark of the Beast'. There's databases, tracking devices, reconnaissance UAV's, etc.. There will no place to hide and no place to run.

reply to post by texastig

1st paragraph: denies Revelation is fear mongering.

2nd paragraph: continues fear mongering.

reply to post by texastig

There has to be a Creator because mindless and unguided evolution cannot create complex organisms.

I realize I'm contributing to an off-topic posting,

but you know this how???



Because Dobson and Focus on the Family says so?

Gryphon66
This is not a complicated situation, no matter how much you frantically try to muddy the water because you were caught red-handed in misrepresentation. One more time and I'm done.

You were caught red handed. You were the one who started with an outright lie blaming Christians for the Bibliographical test. Here's your quote:

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."

It was not a concept created for Christian apologetics by Christian apologists like you said in your quote above. It was created by Sanders and that means you were wrong. Sanders is a military historian not a theologian.

Gryphon66
I QUOTED the Sanders book and page. GO back and read it, for goodness sake; click your own link. The Sanders book does not say what you said it did. Sanders DOES NOT SPEAK of a "bibliographic test," he refers to physical bibliographic evidence which is the NATURE OF THE MATERIAL PRINTED ON and not the made up "textual tradition" that you and the probe.org site alleges it does.

Sanders does not say "physical bibliographic evidence". He says:
"Bibliographical evidence is that which is inherent in the physical material of which the manuscript or book is composed."
The Webster's Dictionary definition of bibliographic is "the history, identification, or description of writings or publications".
This matches what Probe.org says for "textual tradition".
You test manuscripts with Bibliographical evidence. That's how you find out if a manuscript is true or not.

Gryphon66
You, probe.org and virtually every Christian apologetics site out there reference this same fabricated "biographic test" like it's a valid and known criteria like a "litmus test" or "polygraph test" when it reality it is merely oft repeated slang for "academic sounding" nonsense that each site copies-and-pastes from each other trying to build the illusion of a consensus.

Every historian uses Bibliographical evidence not just Christians. You have atheist and agnostics that use it also.

Gryphon66
If you cut-and-pasted something from the probe site without verifying EITHER SOURCE, you're merely perpetuating this dishonesty.

That's funny that you say that because you were blaming Christians for the bibliographical test.

Gryphon66
Further, this exercise proves the absolute ludicrosity of claiming that "textual tradition" or the practice of copying a text over and over somehow lends credence to it.

No, it doesn't. The Biblical manuscripts have been copied very well. Look at the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls. That matches what we have in our Bible today. Same for the New Testament.

Chamberf=6
I realize I'm contributing to an off-topic posting,
but you know this how???

Because Dobson and Focus on the Family says so?

Because it logical, plain and simple.
The very computer or cell phone your on was created. It did not come from nothing. Same for us, the world and universe.

daskakik
1st paragraph: denies Revelation is fear mongering.
2nd paragraph: continues fear mongering.

Warnings, not fear mongering.

iRoyalty
I'll have a go at grasping the reality of the written word... The written word was put onto paper 100 years after Jesus died,

That is not correct. Paul the Apostle wrote about Jesus in Galatians 25 years after Jesus resurrection.
Historians like information close to the source and 25 years is exceptional.

iRoyalty
there is no way they are accurate, also through translation, multiple re-writing from leaders that have conquered, even religious leaders deciding to alter the texts to fit in with societies that they moved to (to make it easier for people to convert) has led to the Bible being nothing more than dogma designed to rule the masses.

No text has been altered, we can see that with the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's the same thing we have today in our Bible and also for the New Testament.

iRoyalty
As for the spoken word, since the source is usually the bible, I would again say extremely flawed and unreliable, also a quick game of Chinese whispers will prove that most of that is just the word of man and men are corrupt.

Will you say that for other ancient manuscripts like for Alexander the Great? He was written about 400 years after he died. I'd rather believe in 25 years because no fairy tales or myths could have came up. Plus, there were still people alive that Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians that seen the resurrected Jesus.

iRoyalty
This God you describe sounds ruthless and quite evil, whilst I totally believe Jesus existed I think you can keep you Christianity to yourself, seems flawed. Why not just do good deeds and worship God in your own way rather than conforming to a book that has been changed a silly silly amount of times over the past 2000 years.

How can God be ruthless and evil when He sent His Son to die for you? While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Jesus tells us to share the Gospel (Good News) that people can free from their sins by believing in Him.
There are no changes in the Bible as I stated above.

Gryphon66
The only "rock solid foundation" that the Bible presents is a confusion of several thousand scraps of ancient writings and several hundred subsequent "translations" of those scraps NONE OF WHICH AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. Every version is rife with internal contradictions. The only way in which it is the most "well attested" ancient text is as a record of human gullibility and chicanery, in my opinion.

No confusion, no contradictions. What the Early Church had, we have today. The book of Isaiah found at Qumran is the same that we have today and that goes for the New Testament.

reply to post by texastig


Tex: Except that ... absolutely nothing you just posted is true. Don't you believe that "the truth will set you free"?

Can't tell from your posts. You got caught misquoting and misrepresenting your source and you're persisting in the same mistakes and trying to make it appear that you didn't do it. It's really hard not to call what you're doing now for what it is.

I cited what Sanders said word-for-word in my original post and again and again. You're just desperately trying to spin the truth.

Sanders, the military historian, did not speak of a "bibliographic test," he spoke of bibliographic evidence (along with internal evidence and external evidence) and that has to do with the physical material that the texts are written upon. Once again the "bibliographic test" that is so prevalent on Christian Apologetics sites is defined as comparing the texts themselves (not the materials) for similarity.

As simply as I can state it:

Material text is written on (Sanders) [does not equal] the tradition [sic] of comparing one text to another for similarity (Christians).

This is the last I'll say on this matter.

texastig
Warnings, not fear mongering.

If it never comes to pass then those warnings are fear mongering.

Also, you being of the opinion that it is happening doesn't mean it is.

The cherry on top is that even if it were happening we are not obligated to care.

Gryphon66

Your the one who said Christians made the Bibliographical test for Christians and that was an outright lie.
I thought the last time was your last say?

texastig
No text has been altered, we can see that with the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's the same thing we have today in our Bible and also for the New Testament.

Then please explain why out of my 4 bibles, I have 3 completely different sets of "the ten commandments?" Two are in different order, different wording and one has 12. How is that not altered?

texastig


That is not correct. Paul the Apostle wrote about Jesus in Galatians 25 years after Jesus resurrection.
Historians like information close to the source and 25 years is exceptional.

Historians that do scientific research and don't rely on biased conclusions, don't take supernatural stories as credible evidence. Much more when the story comes only from the apostles, who knew very well each other, and could very well made up the same story together before they spread around the new religion.

They only wrote about jesus,they weren't respectable writers of their time that wrote many other documents of various subjects (among the gospells), so we can judge their writing character and so on their credibility. They came out of nowhere and they only wrote one supernatural story about a person, that none else had ever met, or heard about.
Everything we know about Jesus first come out of this suspecious group of people. (the apostles) No other historical evidence or archeological finds. *

Unlike the various credible, unbiased independent writers that wrote about Alexander the Great and various other historic figures. (Yes there where some myths told about Alexander but knowing the writing character by the other works of each writer we can easily spot the myth and the ''hype'' from the reality).

* There were many people back then called messiahs, Christs (gifted) and Yeshua which was a common Jewish name.
But thats it, None else discribes Jesus christ as the figure we know today apart from the apostles.

daskakik
If it never comes to pass then those warnings are fear mongering.

It will come to pass as past prophecies have before from the Bible.

daskakik
Also, you being of the opinion that it is happening doesn't mean it is.

It is happening right now. Everything is set. A few companies have tried to use chips on their employees and the Christians have sued them and won.

daskakik
The cherry on top is that even if it were happening we are not obligated to care.

Yep, you can care or not, that's your right.

Buttonlip
Then please explain why out of my 4 bibles, I have 3 completely different sets of "the ten commandments?" Two are in different order, different wording and one has 12. How is that not altered?

What versions of the 4 Bibles do you have?

texastig
It will come to pass as past prophecies have before from the Bible.

I know you believe that. It's your right.

It is happening right now. Everything is set. A few companies have tried to use chips on their employees and the Christians have sued them and won.

Sure, I can say it is just shoehorning to satisfy your belief and you will say I'm blind. Never really gets us anywhere.

Yep, you can care or not, that's your right.

So here we are.

BO XIAN

A lot of the posts on this thread illustrate a major corruption, evil, hideousness, suicidal habit, stupidity . . . etc. of our era.
. . . i.e. outrageously obtuse and extreme ARROGANCE.

You shouldnt speak of your fellow Arizona residents in this manner. Its totally against the rules of my (OS) universe. Dragoon/Bisbee or Scottsdale participants in particular. Its Arizona for godsakes (you live here for a reason).

texastig

Buttonlip
Then please explain why out of my 4 bibles, I have 3 completely different sets of "the ten commandments?" Two are in different order, different wording and one has 12. How is that not altered?

What versions of the 4 Bibles do you have?

This is interesting to me Texastig; I also have a number of bibles, the last one given to me for (OF ALL THINGS) a Christmas present; the King James Version, I also have a Christian Science version, a Jehovah Witness version, 'the living bible Catholic version' and a non demominational volume; and the morman thingy. I told my mother; you know what Im going to do with this, compare and contrast with the others (they are all different) dissertations/interpretations of the same metaphors; twisted and manipulated to suit that faiths needs (no surprise there really). I also have the Urantia Book that trumps them all; making 7? if you count it. I could waste the next 20 years of my life exercising a 'comparitive litergy/metaphor/literature curriculum ' using these texts; and one day teach a course to young seminary students at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago/Loyola. I dont have a Gideons though.