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

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Only because your trying to discount christian sources. But in itself thats not fair it would be like trying to prove nero existed but you're not allowed to use roman sources. Outside of christian sources very few people cared enough to write about him. Just like outside of roman sources very few people would write about Nero.

reply to post by defcon5


Who knows? Does it really matter? I'm not trying to be antagonistic it's just I don't see how his sainthood changes anything.

dragonridr
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Only because your trying to discount christian sources. But in itself thats not fair it would be like trying to prove nero existed but you're not allowed to use roman sources. Outside of christian sources very few people cared enough to write about him. Just like outside of roman sources very few people would write about Nero.

The topic of the thread was to address the evidence for existence of a historical Jesus that does not include the Bible. Debating the worthiness of the various texts that were cobbled together to create The Bible (either 300 years later, 600 years later or 1500 years later depending) is really not the point. I think those are good questions, but they aren't the one that the OP posed.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No serious researcher has ever claimed for certain that John the Apostle wrote Revelation, that's why he is commonly referred to as John of Patmos.

Gryphon66

dragonridr
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Only because your trying to discount christian sources. But in itself thats not fair it would be like trying to prove nero existed but you're not allowed to use roman sources. Outside of christian sources very few people cared enough to write about him. Just like outside of roman sources very few people would write about Nero.

The topic of the thread was to address the evidence for existence of a historical Jesus that do not include the Bible.

Wasn't discussing the thread i was talking about how much information we have on one man that lived in an area 2000 years ago. You said there wasn't a vast amount of information like Ceasar or Nero. Well theres the same amount of information available but people want to discredit it. Luckily as i pointed out earlier that wasnt the only source.

reply to post by dragonridr


What sources exist from the time that Jesus was alive that mention him? Someone writing about Jesus 20 or 30 years after he died based on second and third hand accounts is hardly proof of his existence. Roman emperors lives were documented while they were alive based on firsthand accounts, Jesus' life was not. That's the difference here.

reply to post by defcon5


Church tradition claims that John the apostle wrote Revelation though. If they are the mouth-piece of god they should know that with a certainty and there is no way, in my opinion, that John the apostle wrote Revelation.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The problem now is that you have two Churches who are now competing over who is the “real” church, and if they were lying they would have to be coordinating those lies all this time. You'd think that if one had “dirt” on the other, and proof of them altering the word, that would have come out. How different is an Orthodox bible? When was their bible canonized and released to the public? How different are their stories on the original Church Patriarchs?

reply to post by dragonridr


I didn't mention a thing about Caesar, and if we're not talking about the topic of the thread, what are we talking about? My point has been that the Pro-Historical-Jesus position has successfully muddied the original question which was about extra-biblical contemporary sources of evidence for an actual Jesus. (Not surprisingly). We long ago addressed either the lack of or questionable quality of any such evidence (Josephus, et. al.).

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by dragonridr

 

What sources exist from the time that Jesus was alive that mention him? Someone writing about Jesus 20 or 30 years after he died based on second and third hand accounts is hardly proof of his existence. Roman emperors lives were documented while they were alive based on firsthand accounts, Jesus' life was not. That's the difference here.

See there you go again of course they were documented while he lived there called scriptures. Just like Roman emperors were documented by romans. You could no more prove a roman emperor existed if you couldn't use roman sources. Luckily the roman documented everything so we have a couple of examples from them about Jesus. But you need to understand one thing Who would document Jesus other than Christians. There has to be some self intrest involved like there was with tacitus for example.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Every bible I've ever had is pretty clear on the fact that the writing of Revelation is drastically different than that of the Book of John, and therefore not written by the same person. They aren't even sure if John was written by John, so they call the writer of that “John the Evangelist”. Apparently John was a pretty popular name back in the day.

defcon5
if they were lying they would have to be coordinating those lies all this time. You'd think that if one had “dirt” on the other, and proof of them altering the word, that would have come out.

Not if they both benefited from it.

reply to post by defcon5


Martin Luther lived in the 16th century, 1,500 years after Jesus died. You said that Luther created the schism because of the unbiblical traditions that the RCC had in place. The divide was not based on changes made to the bible but traditions supposedly based on the bible and this happened 1,500 years after the fact.

Again, I see the formation of the Orthodox church as a divide and conquer tactic. Anyone can put on the illusion that they are against each other, that doesn't mean they actually are in my opinion.

reply to post by dragonridr


No, Jesus' life wasn't put down on paper until Mark wrote his gospel 30 years after Jesus died. There is no document from the time that Jesus lived that mention him.

Rome documented everything except Jesus, why is that do you think? Josephus supposedly wrote about him but that's widely accepted to be an interpolation. Why would Rome feel the need to interpolate a mention of Jesus into one of its most famous historians works if there was no doubt Jesus existed?

defcon5
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

The problem now is that you have two Churches who are now competing over who is the “real” church, and if they were lying they would have to be coordinating those lies all this time. You'd think that if one had “dirt” on the other, and proof of them altering the word, that would have come out. How different is an Orthodox bible? When was their bible canonized and released to the public? How different are their stories on the original Church Patriarchs?

A general answer to the question is that the Orthodox Church set its modern "canon" at the Trullan Synod in 691-92, although the list of accepted books was fairly standard by the late 300s. The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible were considered the official English translations for years. The Orthodox Churches have a new standard translation that was set in 2011.

The current Western Canon (the Bible we know today) was not standardized until the Council of Trent in 1545-63.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Roman emperors lives were documented while they were alive based on firsthand accounts, Jesus' life was not.

Since WHEN has history ever spoken the truth?

Until one comes face to face with the FACT that the elite have been manipulating history and doing everything they possibly can to spread lies about Jesus...

NOTHING else is ever going to make a bit of sense.

An unperson is a person who has been "vaporized"; who has been not only killed by the state, but effectively erased from existence. Such a person would be written out of existing books, photographs, and articles so that no trace of their existence could be found in the historical record. The idea is that such a person would, according to the principles of doublethink, be forgotten completely (for it would be impossible to provide evidence of their existence), even by close friends and family members.

Rewriting History and Making Facts Disappear

"Here is a fact: There is far more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for virtually anyone in ancient history. Anyone who peddles that “Christ-myth” theory, does NOT do so on the ground of historical evidence. The fact of Jesus Christ in history is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as is the fact of Julius Caesar. Get this straight. It is not historians who promote the “Christ-myth” notion. ...his alleged words and actions were documented by numerous people. LINK

dragonridr

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by dragonridr

 

What sources exist from the time that Jesus was alive that mention him? Someone writing about Jesus 20 or 30 years after he died based on second and third hand accounts is hardly proof of his existence. Roman emperors lives were documented while they were alive based on firsthand accounts, Jesus' life was not. That's the difference here.

See there you go again of course they were documented while he lived there called scriptures. Just like Roman emperors were documented by romans. You could no more prove a roman emperor existed if you couldn't use roman sources. Luckily the roman documented everything so we have a couple of examples from them about Jesus. But you need to understand one thing Who would document Jesus other than Christians. There has to be some self intrest involved like there was with tacitus for example.

Your comments are astoundingly inaccurate here dragonridr. The oldest "scriptures" that are extant are from the first century AT BEST (c. 125 CE). Arguments for authorship of the Pauline Epistles date from years after Jesus' alleged death (51-58 AD). (Citation - Perkins, "Reading the New Testament")

... and the Gospels, according to consensus scholars, were written 40-50 years after Jesus AT THE EARLIEST.

Your post is merely "talking through your hat" friend. Weren't you suggesting earlier that others needed to actually learn the facts about what they were talking about? Seems like excellent advice, don't you think?

Murgatroid
Since WHEN has history ever spoken the truth?

Never, including this Jesus thing.

reply to post by defcon5


Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp who was a student of John the apostle, seems to have believed John the apostle wrote Revelation. In fact, many of the early church fathers held this tradition, but not all. You'd think the servants of god would know these things without a doubt.

reply to post by Murgatroid


If history has never told the truth, why do you think it told the truth about Jesus? Quite the dichotomy you have there.