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

reply to post by Gryphon66


(Hangs head in shame) My bad.........

reply to post by windword


You crack me up.

Quite a thread, this.

There is no real proof that a slave cleaned out the toilets in Rome during the Empire, doesn't mean he/she didn't exist.

reply to post by Rigsby

There is no real proof that a slave cleaned out the toilets in Rome during the Empire, doesn't mean he/she didn't exist.

Hi. Welcome to ATS.
I'm sorry, but this post of yours doesn't really address the question....

Can you explain how "Jesus of Nazareth" is appropriately compared with a "toilet-cleaning-slave", in terms of extra-Biblical historical evidence? Yeah, we all know about Roman plumbing. We have extra-Biblical records that tell us so, as well as physical evidence.

For "Jesus" there is NONE, except for what's in the Bible, or a few suspect writings that have been doubted and/or debunked.
That's the point.

reply to post by wildtimes


That is more than like have to do with the administrative practices at the time of recording its citizens. At the time the Roman Empire was responsible for the country Jesus occupied. Due to wars and the Empire collapsing it is not surprising that if records existed in the Empire concerning Jesus, say his trial for example, didn't survive. You usually find religious records are more likely to survive due to the intensity of the individuals holds to the important of the records trying to be saved.

The slave quote was just to state that not all citizens of the Roman Empire where recorded, nor were all the citizens of Israel at the time, that's just due to the form of government etc.,not holding much credence to having such records.

reply to post by Rigsby

You usually find religious records are more likely to survive due to the intensity of the individuals holds to the important of the records trying to be saved.

One would think.

Which explains why the massive Library of Alexandria was burned down - several times - by rival congregations/nations, including a Pope and Muslims. (Just a wiki intro - will lead you to further info if you let it.)

The library was conceived and opened either during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter (323–283 BC) or during the reign of his son Ptolemy II (283–246 BC). As a symbol of the wealth and power of Egypt, it employed many scribes to borrow books from around the known world, copy them, and return them. Most of the books were kept as papyrus scrolls, and though it is unknown how many such scrolls were housed at any given time, their combined value was incalculable.

The library is famous for having been burned, resulting in the loss of many scrolls and books, and has become a symbol of the destruction of cultural knowledge. Ancient sources differ widely on who is responsible for the destruction and when it occurred. Although there is a mythology of the burning of the Library at Alexandria, the library may have suffered several fires or acts of destruction over many years. Possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria include a fire set by Julius Caesar in 48 BC, an attack by Aurelian in the 270s AD, the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391, and the Muslim conquest of Egypt in 642.

reply to post by wildtimes


Well this should give indications on why there are not many references to Jesus. But then who knows that they are not more writing and recordings of this man? They could be held by the Vatican or other orders for reasons unknown, maybe they provide a deeper insight?

Also how much of our history has been destroyed but such acts as you have described? A great deal I image.

reply to post by Rigsby

Well this should give indications on why there are not many references to Jesus.

Of course. I'm aware of that. The problem is that we know about the Library being a target.....because we have HARD EVIDENCE of it having existed.

Though almost all ancient sources agree that the Alexandrian library was one of the largest and most significant libraries of the ancient world,[7] details about the library are a mixture of history and legend.[8] The library's main purpose was to show off the wealth of Egypt, with research as a lesser goal,[9] but the library's contents were used to aid the ruler of Egypt.[8]

According to the earliest source of information, the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas composed between c180 and 145 BC,[9] the library was initially organized by Demetrius of Phaleron,[10] a student of Aristotle, under the reign of Ptolemy I Soter (c.367 BC—c.283 BC). Other sources claim it was instead created under the reign of his son Ptolemy II (283–246 BC).[11] The Library was built in the Brucheion (Royal Quarter) in the style of Aristotle's Lyceum, adjacent to and in service of the Musaeum (a Greek Temple or "House of Muses", whence the term "museum").[12]

The Library at Alexandria was in charge of collecting all the world's knowledge, and most of the staff was occupied with the task of translating works onto papyrus paper.[8] It did so through an aggressive and well-funded royal mandate involving trips to the book fairs of Rhodes and Athens.[13]

(same source as above).

Quite a few external sources. NONE of them "the Bible."

See, the problem is, Rigsby, that ancient documents were routinely destroyed by the 'victors', and history rewritten.
Both Roman Catholic and Muslim forces are said to have contributed....there's no "religious" issue at hand: The Library was destroyed. The question one MUST ask is:

WHY??!!

reply to post by wildtimes


The why may ever been known, so many variables, I assume the contents, or the fact it stood for something (the library), something in the library could of contradicted there beliefs, or they found something that they were trying to hide, but all this is speculation. But with human nature being what it is and nothing has changed, what I have mentioned could be valid.

Gryphon66
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Hint: Your "historical" approach has Christianity starting among the same people (the Jews) you proved, conclusively, wouldn't have started it. Last time I checked, you can't logically have it both ways. Sorry about that.

Which is precisely why it is more likely that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure rather than a fictitious one....the Jews would not have created it simply out of imagination....there had to be a real catalyst....


A2D

Welcome Rigby!

Here's the thing : when we start interpolating to what could have been valid when we start with circumstantial and no actual physical evidence where we end up is suspect. If you went back into this discussion, most of us arguing against a "historical Jesus" do not exclude the chance that someone like him could have lived, only that there is no undisputed evidence of his life (and in this question, evidence is contemporaneous written (papyri, stone carving, monument, etc) or visual evidence (coin, sculpture, mosaic, etc.)).

Surmising from circumstantial evidence based on what seems reasonable to our culture 2000 or so years later could take us to rather unpleasant and extreme conclusions like say ... Jesus was an undead homosexual that forced ritual cannibalism on his followers: (undead - "rose from the dead," homosexual - lived with 12 men, never married, John was the disciple that he "loved" who lay on his breast (John 13:23), and enforced cannibalism - "take, eat, this is my body and my blood"). Now, please note I am NOT SAYING THAT JESUS WAS GAY OR UNDEAD OR A LEADER OF A CANNIBAL DEATH CULT ... I'm saying that when we start surmising based on mere circumstantial evidence what might be true, we can easily end up on strange and absurd places.

Agree2Disagree

Gryphon66
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Hint: Your "historical" approach has Christianity starting among the same people (the Jews) you proved, conclusively, wouldn't have started it. Last time I checked, you can't logically have it both ways. Sorry about that.

Which is precisely why it is more likely that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure rather than a fictitious one....the Jews would not have created it simply out of imagination....there had to be a real catalyst....


A2D

These are the same people that you conclusively proved would or could not have created the idea of Jesus ... but they would have lined up to believe in him by completely setting aside their very strict beliefs and going against the same cultural imperatives that you laid out so skillfully earlier? According to your own logic, A2D, it seems improbable at best.

colbe

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.

Why is that? Was there evidence presented recently that proves he exists? Or is it still the same fairy tail book they've been using for the last 2000 years? Give me the proof and I'll change my mind. All you got is the bible, well there are many fantastical claims made in it. Fantastical claims require fantastical evidence. So show me something, until then I'll maintain my stance of AGNOSTICISM.

That isn't hardheadedness it is skepticism. BIG difference.

reply to post by Scope and a Beam


Excellent thread and by not means the only one in ATS in the years I been here that have tackle this issue.

Sadly it is true, outside the bible is not recollection from the part of writers of the time of jesus that makes references to him.

It is interesting also that religious believes will quote examples of writings after the facts, but none can quote somebody well know during this period of time.

reply to post by wildtimes

wildtimes
For "Jesus" there is NONE, except for what's in the Bible, or a few suspect writings that have been doubted and/or debunked.

Krazysh0t
Why is that? Was there evidence presented recently that proves he exists? Or is it still the same fairy tail book they've been using for the last 2000 years? Give me the proof and I'll change my mind. All you got is the bible, well there are many fantastical claims made in it. Fantastical claims require fantastical evidence. So show me something, until then I'll maintain my stance of AGNOSTICISM.

Hey Wild, hope you are well...

MamaJ's post bears repeating (THX MamaJ...):

MamaJ
For the seeker who seeks the soul of Jesus outside Biblical texts, he will most certainly find plenty. For the seeker who is biased already, he will seek to prove himself right. You won't see the entity anywhere much less believe all these accounts are him. It's all fabricated. From NDE, to dreams, to gifts such as medium-ship, art, music, and so on there is proof of not only the afterlife but Jesus himself. There are thousands of accounts who were not believers, who are now because of the "experience" of Jesus.

My own personal experience confirms this as well...

I was once an atheist years ago but when I began to experience supernatural encounters that only God Himself could have done, all of that changed.

This isn't just a matter of faith, I have seen undeniable proof and so have countless others as well.

The end result is I KNOW that God is very much real.

Many on ATS are real honest to God truth SEEKERS, to those I would say this...

I double dog DARE you to take the challenge quoted below.

WHAT have you got to lose?

"If that is not enough, I challenge all non-believers to ask him yourself. If you ask Jesus directly if he is real, to show himself to you, in an honest and humble manner, simply a search for truth, he will do something to show you he is real. Please be patient, as he will do this on his timing, not yours!!"

I did see a documentary which alleged to of discovered the name of Jesus on a tomb, but then others have stated there were many people called Jesus at that period in time.

The burden of proof is a double edge sword, what is proof to one isn't to another. What is hard evidence? The bible was a construction of the early Christian church, they decided what should be left in and what should be left out.

Do people want the truth in this day and age? Its more about social behaviour, personal experiences, people perceptions, beliefs etc. Some people have claimed they have seen Jesus, so to them it is proof, but to those that haven't seen him, then it is not.

reply to post by Rigsby


Well here is the thing about proof. The weaker the proof, the less believers of it. So if you find a tombstone dating back to the Middle Ages with Jesus' name on it, it will only be good enough for a certain percentage of people. Someone more skeptical will look at it and say, "There were probably many people named Jesus," or, "Jesus was really named Yeshua," or, "Jesus supposedly ascended into heaven after being resurrected, wouldn't a tombstone disprove this account?"

But that proof can be buffered with more proof. If for instance, in the town that this tombstone was discovered, written accounts of a Messiah figure spent his final days there, then you have a better case for being correct. Of course, skeptics will remain, and further proof is necessary. But that is the thing, nothing is ever 100% certain. Though eventually enough proof could surface to make the skeptic's beliefs laughably incorrect. That still doesn't make it 100% certain though, just more likely than him not having spent his final days at the town.

If the ONLY sources for a man who can apparently do things that normal people could only dream of come from a book and a few letters written after the man had already stopped living for decades, it doesn't exactly come off as very believable to anyone with critical thinking skills. The claims made in the bible are pretty fantastic and we would need quite a deal of evidence to truly prove that they are true. Vlad Dracule was a real person (also called Vlad the Impaler), it doesn't mean that Dracula is an accurate account of his life though.

By the way as far as evidencing Jesus. He already rose from the dead once? Would it be so hard for him to come back again and convert a whole new generation of believers? I mean with all these claims by Christians that evil is running rampant through the world, you'd think it would be in Jesus' best interest to rescue his flock. But nope, nothing has happened yet. (Keep in mind I am not talking about the second coming depicted in Revelations, that account is sillier and less believable than the whole Jesus account).

Murgatroid
I was once an atheist years ago but when I began to experience supernatural encounters that only God Himself could have done, all of that changed.

Funny, the exact opposite happened to me.

I double dog DARE you to take the challenge quoted below.

WHAT have you got to lose?

Have tried it and I got nothing.

Please be patient, as he will do this on his timing, not yours!!"

How convenient.

reply to post by Gryphon66




Well, lets see.. if he is not real than he would not have a soul. A real person to me has a soul anyway. lol

I guess you can say I brought a new idea to the discussion.

It may be a bias toward what I have personally felt since I was able to retain memory and feelings...which I personally share. This is something we all do. It could be a bias that I have educated myself on throughout the years. Again, it's what we as humans do. I am not sure where you were going with your post but I found it to not apply to anything I have been contributing.

If you have been with this thread as I have since the beginning then you know where I stand. Completely open.

There is nothing about being atheistic or agnostic or evidence-based in one's approach to understanding that prevents one from being a Seeker. In fact, logically, I'd say its exactly opposite. Atheists are just as moral, ethical, compassionate, caring and even enlightened as anyone else ... one might remember that philosophical Buddhism is basically atheist. Often, open, honest and rational exploration of the world RESULTS in one not believing in traditional religion, yet, I cannot think of one time I have heard anyone say "just try being an atheist/agnostic for yourself" perhaps because a) we realize that's more than just a bit little insulting and b) we know that there's no purpose; irrational beliefs (from our perspective) can only be overcome by the individual in their own time.

If you notice these discussions are hardly ever atheists/agnostics trying to convince someone to adopt their world-view, they are merely attempts to rationally look at the evidence when we form conclusions. However, in my experience at least, it is not at all uncommon for someone on the theistic side to say "hey, you're wrong, if you'd only honestly TRY our way then you'd see ..."

The answer is, for some but not all, "we already did. Next?"