It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 37
29
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

dragonridr

Krazysh0t

dragonridr

Krazysh0t
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Why yes, self-fulfilling prophecies are in there as well. But you've got me kind of confused since by admitting that, you are kind of siding with my side of the argument that these supposed confirmed "prophecies" aren't as miraculous as Christians like to make them out to be.


Simple you made an assumption on my beliefs just because i correct you doesnt mean i disagree it simply meant you were wrong and Jesus did exist.


But see there are two different levels of existence being discussed in this thread (and it would have been nice if the OP had elaborated this point). Did an ACTUAL man named Jesus exist who was a decent spiritual leader? And also, is this Jesus the same one that is depicted in the bible and did he perform and do the things the bible says he did? I'd say that the jury is still out on the first question and that the second question is probably not true.
edit on 10-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


You made me laugh nothing in life is black and white at least that i have found only different degrees of grey.Did Jesus exist I have no doubt. Did he teach the gospels probably was he the son of god? Well the last one is the matter of faith. Since faith by its very definition is unprovable its for the individual to decide.


Interesting. Christians tend to think there is this duality and conflict between good and evil. I of course disagree and think there is no such thing as a being that is completely good or one that is completely evil (mostly because various actions and inactions by the being could be construed as good by one party and evil by another).

But the point of the thread is where is the evidence for these things about Jesus that the bible claims? Faith is just a feel good thing to help explain away your fears of the unknown. Also it impedes real scientific research when your preconceived notions due to faith conflict with evidence that science is putting forth. Faith isn't good enough for these claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Krazysh0t

dragonridr

Krazysh0t

dragonridr

Krazysh0t
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Why yes, self-fulfilling prophecies are in there as well. But you've got me kind of confused since by admitting that, you are kind of siding with my side of the argument that these supposed confirmed "prophecies" aren't as miraculous as Christians like to make them out to be.


Simple you made an assumption on my beliefs just because i correct you doesnt mean i disagree it simply meant you were wrong and Jesus did exist.


But see there are two different levels of existence being discussed in this thread (and it would have been nice if the OP had elaborated this point). Did an ACTUAL man named Jesus exist who was a decent spiritual leader? And also, is this Jesus the same one that is depicted in the bible and did he perform and do the things the bible says he did? I'd say that the jury is still out on the first question and that the second question is probably not true.
edit on 10-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


You made me laugh nothing in life is black and white at least that i have found only different degrees of grey.Did Jesus exist I have no doubt. Did he teach the gospels probably was he the son of god? Well the last one is the matter of faith. Since faith by its very definition is unprovable its for the individual to decide.


Interesting. Christians tend to think there is this duality and conflict between good and evil. I of course disagree and think there is no such thing as a being that is completely good or one that is completely evil (mostly because various actions and inactions by the being could be construed as good by one party and evil by another).

But the point of the thread is where is the evidence for these things about Jesus that the bible claims? Faith is just a feel good thing to help explain away your fears of the unknown. Also it impedes real scientific research when your preconceived notions due to faith conflict with evidence that science is putting forth. Faith isn't good enough for these claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Well let me say this i work in a lab and scientists do not put faith over science. I have a colleague he is probably the most religious person i know yet when discussing science i know he is only concerned with facts. Many scientific discoveries are made by christians. In fact it may surprise you but the vatican is actively involved in scientific research. So i wouldnt say impedes science though i will say it used to and even then christians still came forward sometimes with dire consequences. I guess what im trying to say is religion isnt the problem its the people that practice it. If people find comfortin therereligion thats a good thing not a bad thing.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


This is mostly to say
for your performance on this thread. If I were a mod, I'd send you a little applause (mods: hint).

I agree with you that there was probably a real Jesus — the grain of truth at the centre of the pearl of storytelling. Has anyone mentioned the reference to Jesus in the Annals of Tacitus, written in the early second century? He certainly believed Jesus existed — and didn't care for him much. See here: Tacitus on Christ.

As you say, the question of whether he was the Son of God is entirely up to faith. No amount of historical documentation can establish that.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Um... you just posted something written by someone in the 2nd century about a man who lived in the 1st century as proof that he existed (not to mention it has already been discussed in this thread). That would be like me writing about John Henry like he was a real person in the 1800's. He may well have been a real person, but there are literally 0 people alive today who could confirm that.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Oh, I am well aware that there are Christians that can put their faith aside to study science, and maybe you are right that it is the practicers of the faith that really circumvent science. I also consider any science being conducted by the vatican to be dubious at best. Of course I have a deep mistrust of the vatican that stems from having grown up RC and learning about all their misdeeds and coverups that continue to this day.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
1) 116 CE is not contemporaneous with 4 BCE to 29 CE at best.

2) The citations "proving Jesus" in Tacitus, as with the ones in Josephus, as with Pliny, as with Suetonius have repeatedly been convincingly argued to be later additions, i.e. forgeries. This is the only reference in the voluminous works of Tacitus.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Gryphon66
Our lively discussion has carried us far from the question in original post. Understandable as this is a contentious subject for many of us.

The original post and question has to do with evidence for a historical Jesus that is OUTSIDE the Biblical texts. We've allowed the tangential (and irrelevant) question of Bible references and authenticity to cloud the issue.

There are no unquestionably reliable contemporary references or evidence for Jesus. I think we've answered the question.


I indeed gave you examples and even when these sources were questioned explained why they were still valid i suggest reading the whole thread we had quite a debate. Which frankly im not going to rehash if you have a question on something i posted by all means ask.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


It's a bit more than that. Tacitus was an historian and, to the extent that was possible in those days, took the trouble to verify his sources. But you ought to read the exerpt; I linked it to my earlier post. It's a passing reference in an account of the great fire of Rome (which Nero blamed on the Christians, he says). It is rather convincing, at least as an account of popular (non-Christian) historical narrative.

Anyway, I'm not trying to prove Jesus existed. To repeat myself, I think he did — that is to say, there lived an itinerant first-century rabbi who became the focus of some kind of cult, which over time and with lots of imaginative reconstruction, metamorphosed into a world religion.

By the way, lighten up; you're giving atheism a bad name.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



This is the only reference in the voluminous works of Tacitus.

Correct.


The citations "proving Jesus" in Tacitus... have repeatedly been convincingly argued to be later additions.

I think you will find you are wrong about that.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I've actually already read that account. I am aware of what it says. I am also aware of what Tacitus says. Here is a link debunking it:

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus


Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."


One more thing. I'm an agnostic atheist. I like to debate, I always have. I also cannot stand extraordinary claims without evidence to back it up. Which is what believers tend to do with the bible. The purpose of this thread is to debate. I'm here to do it. If you think that me debating is giving atheists a bad name then you don't know what I'm talking about. Not to mention you don't know me outside of this forum (I also believe you don't even know me IN these forums since I certainly don't recognize your username). So how about we keep the ad hominems out of the discussion.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


For the last time, Tiger, I agree with you that there is no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Now this:


The purpose of this thread is to debate. I'm here to do it. If you think that me debating is giving atheists a bad name then you don't know what I'm talking about.

It is not your debating, but your evident eagerness to hammer home the dogma that there is not a shred of truth or value in anything to do with religion that threatens to give atheism a bad name. I'm an atheist, too — I don't bother to insert the 'agnostic' because that goes without saying. We don't need to crush other people's cherished beliefs into the ground in order to validate our own unbelief, you know. I can be pretty hard on obnoxious believers myself, especially those with a political agenda like creationists, but that's not what I'm seeing in this thread. I see a bunch of unbelievers siezing on an issue and using it as a stick to beat believers with. Ugly.


Not to mention you don't know me outside of this forum (I also believe you don't even know me IN these forums since I certainly don't recognize your username). So how about we keep the ad hominems out of the discussion.

I may not know you outside this forum, but I most certainly do know you within it. I pay attention to the personalities and attitudes of fellow members — it's a club, right? As it happens, I've starred posts of yours more times than I can remember. But right now, in this thread, you're being a pain, and — speaking as one unbeliever to another — I wish you'd stop.


edit on 10/1/14 by Astyanax because: of unbelief.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Ok, I'll take that into consideration. I will admit that I can get riled about the debate of religion (being that I'm ex-Catholic and this stuff really hits home for me) and the hardheadedness of some of the religious posters can fuel it. Also, I'm bored at work, and this is the thread that I'm currently most active on

edit on 10-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





This is mostly to say for your performance on this thread. If I were a mod, I'd send you a little applause (mods: hint).


Pfft.


Has anyone mentioned the reference to Jesus in the Annals of Tacitus, written in the early second century? He certainly believed Jesus existed — and didn't care for him much. See here: Tacitus on Christ.




I usually really respect your input, but I'm absolutely dismayed that you, a valued and seasoned forum member, would enter a thread a thread at page 37 and ask if a subject, that remains contentious and unresolved, while being debated page after page, has been mentioned!

In addition to the citation that Krazyshot posted, just above, among other citiation as well, I have posted this, a few times now, as a rebuttal to Tacitus.


If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.
nazirene.org...


If, at the time of Tacitus writings, the followers of the so called Jesus were not called Christians, but were in fact called Nazarene, and if Jesus was not called "Christ", as it was a pagan title already in use by many others, past and present, then there was NO JESUS CHRIST.

This is exactly what I, and others, have been arguing for pages and pages. :frustration:




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The last thing that needs to happen is that "atheists" start critiquing what kind of "atheist" another is.

That's dogmatic and that's how religions start. Atheist and atheism are merely negative propositions that SHOULD be unnecessary in rational conversation.

I don't have to have an identification word for myself that states that I don't believe in unicorns or other fantastic creatures, for example.

Astyanax, with all respect, you don't know what kind of historian Tacitus was. You don't know how he did his research, you don't know how faithful he was or what his motivations were ... you make it sound like you had dinner with him last Thursday, which, barring time travel, you didn't. Stop talking through your hat; if you find Tacitus compelling, that's fine. I don't, others in the discussion don't, many in the wider world don't. Stick to the textual evidence.

And by the way, unless you have other more compelling evidence than you've shared, it's your opinion. We have ours. No need to suggest that you've given it exhaustive consideration and we haven't.

Dragonridr, friend, I've deleted about three personal responses to you throughout the discussion. I realize that English is probably not your first language, and that we all have posting quirks, but really, your posts have an arrogant tone that isn't justified in any way by their content. So, I'd like to ask that you lay off the personal comments, okay? Stick to the evidence, stick to the facts. If you have facts, (which you don't in this regard, you have opinions), then post them. If you have counter-evidence to someone's claim, present it.

In terms of the question at hand, it really seems that the discussion has reviewed the evidence and found it lacking over all. Of course, believers will believe. Jesus may have existed, but there's no compelling evidence outside the New Testament for many people. That seems clear.
edit on 12Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:16:32 -060014p122014166 by Gryphon66 because: Typos

edit on 12Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:17:52 -060014p122014166 by Gryphon66 because: more typos

edit on 12Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:23:13 -060014p122014166 by Gryphon66 because: on mo' time.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Ok its really boring when people dont read posts we all ready discussed nazarenes it was shown christiuans never were called nazarenes. Go back and look ive also showed tacitus statement was in line with history and what was going on in rome. You would have to be brain dead not to see it. Now the argument was it faked no it wasnt so the only hope is it was talking about another jesus hell of a coincidence there. Look people usual jump to extremes i tend to just look at facts. There is no historian that will say he didnt exist period. Now if you want to argue if he walked on water well thats entirely different and ill bow out of this thread. I dont believe anyone should try tochange or dictate someones beliefs they are a personal thing to that individual. Along those same lines i dont think anyone should be attacked for the beliefs no matter how stupid you may think they are. I learned very rarely can you change someones beliefs but the only way that ever occurs is to make them think not ridicule them.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

dragonridr
reply to post by windword
 

I learned very rarely can you change someones beliefs but the only way that ever occurs is to make them think not ridicule them.


Which is why you call anyone who doesn't accept your posts "brain dead"??? Are you reading what you're writing? No cognitive dissonance whatsoever? That explains a lot.

LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC: What evidence, other than what has been presented and discussed, for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth OUTSIDE THE BIBLE?
edit on 12Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:28:40 -060014p122014166 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Calm down!



Ok its really boring when people dont read posts we all ready discussed nazarenes it was shown christiuans never were called nazarenes.


No it wasn't. In fact, quite the opposite was shown.


Go back and look ive also showed tacitus statement was in line with history and what was going on in rome. You would have to be brain dead not to see it.


Your evidence is invalid, in that the early followers of "Jesus", if he existed, were called Nazarene. This is a fact. Tacitus was NOT referring to any group of (Christian) apostlistic followers.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Ok, I'll take that into consideration. I will admit that I can get riled about the debate of religion (being that I'm ex-Catholic and this stuff really hits home for me) and the hardheadedness of some of the religious posters can fuel it. Also, I'm bored at work, and this is the thread that I'm currently most active on

edit on 10-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



Krazysh0t,

Aren't you "hardheaded" to deny God? Naaah.

You have the grace given in the Sacraments on your soul. I'll offer prayers too, God is working you. All the world will be enlightened unless you die before the divine "awakening." Also called the Great Warning.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Calm down!



Ok its really boring when people dont read posts we all ready discussed nazarenes it was shown christiuans never were called nazarenes.


No it wasn't. In fact, quite the opposite was shown.


Go back and look ive also showed tacitus statement was in line with history and what was going on in rome. You would have to be brain dead not to see it.


Your evidence is invalid, in that the early followers of "Jesus", if he existed, were called Nazarene. This is a fact. Tacitus was NOT referring to any group of (Christian) apostlistic followers.




Ok one more time at the time of christ there was a group known as nazarites they were a Jewish sect being jewish jesus probably was one at one time. Though he doesnt seem to care in the new testament about touching the dead etc. So no way to know. T The title "Nazarene" is first found in the Greek texts of the New Testament as an adjective, nazarenos, used as an adjectival form of the phrase apo Nazaret "from Nazareth." So this means it was a location description even in the 4th century but not the name of a group. Later in the 4th century a sect of christianity takes on this name but again its a small group much like the Essenes. Tacitus was a first century historian so he wouldn't know anything about the 4th century. You really need to look at history and the events at the time in rome as well.

We all know the passage in the annals paragraph 44 by tacitus by now but here goes.




Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular


Then later Suetonius says this



Since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of Christ, he (Claudius) expelled them from the city


This is generally accepted by scholars and senate records to be 49 AD.He doesnt stop there he goes on further saying:




Neither human resources, nor imperial generosity, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated the sinister suspicion that the fire had been deliberately started. To stop the rumor, Nero, made scapegoats--and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the Procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus (who was actually a Praefectus, not a Procurator). But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out again, not just in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital. First, Nero had the self-admitted Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned--not so much for starting fires as because of their hatred for the human race. Their deaths were made amusing. Dressed in wild animals' skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be seton fire after dark as illumination.... Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man's brutality rather than to the national interest."


This is just merely letting us know how much of a gossip he was he had opinions on everything he wrote he writes this as a note.




"punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."


Now the only way to dispute this is to say this wasnt referring to christians but history tells us it was since christians were even found mentioning this in burials in the catacombs. Then there is further confirmation in the 1st century again from Trajan and Pliny which i just won't go into. Now there is very few scholars who do not consider these to be mentions of christians in fact was firmly rooted until the 90s when certain groups started to look for ways to attack christians. In fact this still continues today in popular media outlets.


If you choose to believe Jesus didnt exist so be it historians as a rule dont agree with you. there all rehashed in one big post.
edit on 1/10/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


So let me get this straight....

Jews "created" this "messiah" figure, we'll call him Fesus or Fake Jesus....
Your theory - "They created him because they HATED the Roman rule and HATED that the Romans were occupying their Holy Land...."

Well, a few easy questions then....Why would the Jews create a figure like what we see in the scriptures...why would they choose this man Fesus instead of the divine battle-archetype we see in the OT...and why would they willingly have salvation applicable TO ALL PEOPLE? The Jews didn't particularly like Gentiles, and especially the Romans....You tell me why they would create it THAT WAY....

Besides for those, let's try to rationalize why JEWS would create a Messiah that didn't fit JEWISH theology....Every orthodox Jewish man/woman/child alive today will tell you that they don't believe Jesus was the Messiah because he simply did not QUALIFY..(excluding Messianic Jews)

Why would they create this Fesus-Messiah that essentially alters the law that they had readily observed already for years on end....
Why would they create this Fesus-Messiah that doesn't fit in Judaisms scheme of "National Revelation"...that is God revealing himself to the entire nation, not a few select individuals...
Why would they create this Fesus-Messiah that is essentially demi-god, when Jews believe the Messiah will be born a completely natural and physical HUMAN....

I mean...didn't they know how to convince their fellow Jews? Didn't they know the qualifications for being the Messiah? Or did they just say "awww screw the qualifications everyone will believe us because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE IN THE MESSIAH"

Now you tell me, if the Jews were going to "CREATE" or "MAKE UP" this supposed figure, wouldn't their imagine be enough to be able to at least fill out the requirements...Instead we see Judaism REJECT him as Messiah...so apparently they couldn't even FAKE IT GOOD ENOUGH.

A2D




top topics



 
29
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join