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

SimonPeter
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

I don't base my faith on everything published . What was his qualifications ? When did he write it ? What was he trying to prove ?

The Bible wasn't written by one person, that's the point. "When did he write it?" You don't think Jesus wrote The Bible, do you?

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.

Actually, there are plenty of records of slaves doing menial work in Rome during the Empire.

reply to post by Akragon


I don't suppose you considered that the Catholics would have removed everything that Jesus said that named them as a cult . They did not .All you know is what someone else wrote with out knowledge as to their mission . Like you ! You would hunt over remarkable works of the bible to find one point where you might find fault . A fact is that there were many accounts of Jesus . Have you ever thought that one account may miss something because they have been distracted ( had to relieve themselves ) where by others may have included that part . Then too the Catholics didn't have everything , every account or a single running account of the times of Jesus . Over time those accounts may have added to it when the theologians compared the context and considered it pertained to the event .

But the message has not changed .

reply to post by Scope and a Beam


Not sure if someone already mentioned this, but there is a book called "The Case for Christ." An agnostic attorney looks into the truth behind Jesus outside of the biblical texts. After all his research, he quits being an attorney and pursues a religious career. It is a solid read, although, as someone who questions everything, I thought it could have delved deeper in certain respects.

reply to post by babybunnies


Not sure who you are talking to . Or what your point is .

reply to post by SimonPeter


ya that's called speculation... we can all do it

I don't suppose you considered that the Catholics would have removed everything that Jesus said that named them as a cult .

Catholics didn't exist at the time of Jesus so why would be mention them at all?

Ignatius of Antioch was the first to use the term... and it wasn't within the first 100 years either

SimonPeter
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

What was his qualifications ?

Harnack was a Lutheran and a fairly prominent theologian and church historian. Professor, University of Leipzig, then later University of Giessen, then still later University of Marburg. Member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. General Director of the Royal Library of Berlin. One of the founders of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, later known as the Max Planck Gesellschaft, and its first President. Published literally thousands of pages of church history and related topics.

When did he write it ?

Harnack published the Geschichte in 1893.

What was he trying to prove ?

Harnack states in the preface of the work that, in the beginning of 1891, the Prussian Academy of Sciences had resolved to produce a new and comprehensive edition of the ante-Nicene Greek Church Fathers. He suggested to the Academy that they have prepared, first, and overview of the resources available for that work, as well as the transmission history of those resources, insofar as they could be given at the time, and he agreed to produce just such an overview within a two to three year period.

reply to post by Akragon


Again the conversation was about the Roman Catholics changing the message . Yes the Jews wanted to suppress the Gospel and they would have demanded that the part where the had him crucified removed and especially where Jesus said the Pharisee's were not really Jews and were of the synagogue of Satan . And since the 17 or 1800s there has been a powerful plan to destroy God and Jesus for the Gentile by those who are not Gentile .
Still the Gospel of Christ lives on .

reply to post by Spectral Norm


You evidently read that he expressed those facts as you view them as his conclusions . That means he with his view came to a conclusion not a fact . People believe what they want and want what they believe .And that is being used against you in your world now . People create their own reality .

Wonderful topic OP, I really enjoyed reading through this thread.

I am by no means an educated man. I do have a great love for history and a desire to understand the "why's and were fore's" of events.

As far as proof of Jesus outside of the Bible, it is all around you. Every corner in my city has churches built to the many forms of Christian worship today. Accepting the existence and teachings of Christ require faith. Faith requires no physical proof.

The word "mythology" gets thrown around a lot in this thread. We all need to realize that a myth is simply the remnants of a religion that was destroyed by Christians. For the followers of the "prince of peace" have blood soaked hands and a history that has known only strife. The reason there is no (A)fter (T)hor in recording time is simply because the early Christians learned the art of war better and faster than the pagans.

The teachings of the Christ are a perfect way to live within society. If all men followed his teachings it would create a utopia. But which teachings are correct, that is the real question. The interpretations have changed with every passing generation it seems. Which makes sense if you are trying to control the current population.

There are many flaws in the Bible. From the two creation myths in Genesis, through the ordered treatment of slaves, into the book of Revelations (that reveals very little). It is the act of faith that looks beyond the flaws and sees the good in the complete work, that makes Christianity the worlds leading religion. It is also the ability to ignore the flaws and denounce all attempts to find the truth that makes a fanatic (no matter the subject). Religion in all it's forms is both a crutch and a weapon.

To demand proof is to denounce faith. No matter what the subject matter this act will cause hostility. The amount of hostility has no bounds when religion is discussed. It is like telling someone that they have no proof that their father is really their father outside of a birth certificate (more paper). Sure it may create a lively discussion but what good does it really do either side?

sorry for the rant............

SimonPeter
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

You evidently read that he expressed those facts as you view them as his conclusions . That means he with his view came to a conclusion not a fact . People believe what they want and want what they believe .And that is being used against you in your world now . People create their own reality .

I am really not sure what that means. I am a Christian, but not an evangelist by any stretch. What others believe, in matters of faith, or lack thereof, is of little importance to me. But I do not subscribe to the view, common, as I understand it, that the Bible is the only book one should ever read.

St. Jerome remarked in Contra Vigilantius, "Quid necesse est in manus sumere, quod ecclesia non recipit?" But if one reads Jerome extensively, as I have, one finds that he himself never obeyed this principle, he merely flirted with it before the faithful. And the Spanish bishops stated against Priscillian, prior to his condemnation and subsequent execution, "Omne quod dicitur in libris canonicis quaeritur et plus legisse peccare est." But at no time in the history of the Church has this principle been taken strictly, nor could it ever have been.

The study of ecclesiastical history is fascinating, personally satisfying, and has only served to increase my faith.

Peace be with you.

And If proof was put forth for your understanding, would you believe Jesus is Lord and Saviour? I doubt it!

reply to post by Spectral Norm


If you are a Christian how can you agree with what Adolf was saying . He was questioning the validity of Christ .In the first place those who are looking for proof doubt the validity .
Adolf was expressing his conclusions not as facts but still directing the questions that cast doubt on Jesus and Christianity . Many people call themselves Christian and still don't believe the events around them point to his return .

SimonPeter
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

If you are a Christian how can you agree with what Adolf was saying . He was questioning the validity of Christ .In the first place those who are looking for proof doubt the validity .
Adolf was expressing his conclusions not as facts but still directing the questions that cast doubt on Jesus and Christianity . Many people call themselves Christian and still don't believe the events around them point to his return .

That is a slight misrepresentation. As stated above, Harnack was a Lutheran, and fairly devout about it, at that. He points out that the Church likes to portray itself as the world's quintessential conservative institution, but that a close scrutiny of the available textual evidence easily demonstrates that it has been anything but.

I see no contradiction. What men have done, or continue to do, does not change who Jesus was, or is. Men get it wrong sometimes. And that's okay. To my mind, the important thing about being a Christian is not demanding slavish, literal interpretation of Scripture, the important thing is to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

And regarding events around us pointing to his return, I suggest paying close attention to Mk 13:32.

Peace be with you.

reply to post by Spectral Norm


If you believe in Jesus as your savior , and that he is the literal Son of God born of a virgin , died for your sins, rose again on the third day and ascended to heaven and keep his commandments then you are ok . Anything else is denial of his Gospel and denying him .There is no in between .

Spectral Norm
Take, for example, Herod Agrippa. We have hundreds of ancient manuscripts referring to the man, and no one seems to doubt that he existed. We also have hundreds of ancients manuscripts referring to Jesus, but no one, except possibly the Christian faithful, wants to believe that he existed.

They might be considering the sources of these documents.

What is certain? What are the criteria for certainty? Does there exist any objective foundation for epistemology, particularly with regard to history?

Good questions. Does anyone have the answers?

That seems like a clever way of dodging the question I posed.

It's hard to give an answer to a question which covers such a large number of situations and their variables.

Now we come to the heart of the matter, that is, the attitude that there is no point in studying the past because you will never get it right. And if you think you have it right, I will simply reject any evidence you might present on the basis that it is biased and fictionalized. And you are powerless to demonstrate otherwise. I disagree with this viewpoint. I think that the past has much to say to us. But then, why should anyone give a damn what I think?

I would say that if you think you have it right you may still have it wrong.

Do you have the power to demonstrate otherwise?

We're back to the question of certainty.

reply to post by daskakik


I would say, at this point, that it might be best to agree to disagree. You clearly find my arguments unconvincing and, likewise, I find yours unconvincing. And it is hard to imagine anything that might be said here that will alter that state of affairs. Thus, it appears that further discussion of these issues is likely to be fruitless.

SimonPeter
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

If you believe in Jesus as your savior , and that he is the literal Son of God born of a virgin , died for your sins, rose again on the third day and ascended to heaven and keep his commandments then you are ok . Anything else is denial of his Gospel and denying him .There is no in between .

Then I am happy that I apparently meet with your approval, since I do not recall having disputed any of those things. But is it okay to have a heart filled with hatred for those who believe otherwise? Certainly not, in my view. In addition to those things, it is necessary to spread kindness, generosity, and love everywhere one goes.

Is it necessary to believe, for example, that the Gospel of Mark was penned by the man identified in Acts as the part-time traveling companion of Paul and nephew of Barnabas, who was essentially writing the memoirs of the Apostle Peter? I do not think so. Will I suffer eternal damnation because I think it is possible that Mk 16:9-20 might be a late addition? Seems unlikely.

reply to post by Spectral Norm

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm telling you why people might not trust the proof offered of a historical Jesus and even among those who believe he existed, there are many who think he was just a regular guy who had this story built up around him.

You know what extraordinary claims require. The story of Herod Agrippa doesn't make those kinds of claims so maybe that is why people don't demand that kind of evidence.

reply to post by daskakik


I see. Then you may henceforth consider me informed of your opinion.

The question at hand is the historical authenticity of Jesus. Whether he was divine, or some sort of wisdom sage, or merely some delusional messianic rabble-rouser, is a separate issue. If one wants to believe the latter, then the claim is far less extraordinary than that of a Roman-installed Judean monarch, is it not?