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

Because mamy have forgotten.
Many declare themselves of a faith yet dont even bother to visit a place of worship once.

Blinded by materialistic # forgetting who we are and what true values are.

It's no wonder what's coming........

There is no proof that Jesus existed, but that doesn't prove he didn't.

Myself, I believe that parables are just a way of keeping the water muddy enough to keep people confused about a simpler truth, never to be set free by the truth because it cannot be found anywhere.

Organized religion is little more than psychological conditioning to get people to conduct themselves in a predictable and easily controlled fashion to make things easier to deal with in a past time when things were different than they are today.

There is no accounting for anything by anyone anywhere and never has been.

I call BS on the whole thing.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

[I]VHB[/I]What effort?

[I]CES[/I]The one where you offered comment on the "exhaustive, brain swelling conclusion".

[I]VHB[/I]I completely agree with you; Paul created Christianity 200 years after the fact of his crucifixion;

[I]CES[/I]This shows clearly that we don't in fact, agree.

[I]VHB[/I]"Glad you cleared that up" still holds water I suppose as you apparently THINK I cleared it all up.

[I]CES[/I]irony (noun)
- the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

Thanks for the English "brush up lesson"; your confusing me using irony instead of mild sarcasm/sardonicism. You are not certain that Jesus existed; and you make no excuses for Paul's version (creation) of Christianity? What was Jesus (if existed) if not an Essene? Your point was he never existed and have yet to offer your opinion as to why you believe so; deflection, or you are purposely trying to expand an argument that's not there. Why not just answer the question, or this instead your quote "This shows clearly that we don't in fact, agree", what clearly shows? (not that anyone is reading this but I apologize in advance for the EXHAUSTIVE nitpickery).

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
There is no proof that Jesus existed, but that doesn't prove he didn't.
Myself, I believe that parables are just a way of keeping the water muddy enough to keep people confused about a simpler truth, never to be set free by the truth because it cannot be found anywhere.
Organized religion is little more than psychological conditioning to get people to conduct themselves in a predictable and easily controlled fashion to make things easier to deal with in a past time when things were different than they are today.
There is no accounting for anything by anyone anywhere and never has been.
I call BS on the whole thing.

I completely agree with YOU; so now I could (under Cogito Ergo Sums terms) expect you to dissuade me as; I am wrong in the agreeing with you in totality (you will tell me why I cant possibly agree with you, and give me your terms and conditions). Organized religion is a child's game gone wrong as playtime is dangerous, its about time they all grew up to be elderly and weak then eventually die. What a mixed up miasma that whole thought form became, murderous helpmate robber barons to the human. Belief structures that are sketchy enough to be warped for personal gain, not teaching the truth about our origins.

a reply to: Scope and a Beam

Jesus as you know him probably never existed but Yeshua (don't like using Jesus) certainly did.

If you look oldest surviving bible Codex Sinaiticus, its clear that the bible has been continually embellished over the centuries with a virgin birth and resurrection to empower the Roman Pope as Gods representative on earth! If we want a better take of Yeshua perhaps Gospel of Thomas is one of the best remaining writings we have today. One verse....

"When you make the two one, and when you
make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside,
and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the
female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the
female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,
and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and
a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the
Kingdom]."

really sounds bit like Hinduism so I think its a strong possibility that Yeshua was trained in Hinduism and could have even visited India via silk road which was used in his day to transport goods/religion between Asia and Europe. The uneducated may have had problems understanding Hinduism so Rome burnt all the great works and replaced them with a simpler version for the European masses (similarly asia created Buddhism as a cut down version of Hinduism for their uneducated).

It boggles my mind that there are still, at this late page number, there are STILL folks on this thread who claim there's no proof of Jesus' existence etc.

Obviously truth and evidence are of no interest to such willfully blind bias.

Sigh.

. . . given over to a delusion, indeed.

What a tragedy.

I don't mean to enrage anyone here, but there seems to me that there's no solid proof that Jesus actually existed. Of course the bible says he did, but I don't trust the bible as it is not a first-hand account and has been, in my opinion, warped over the years by the Church to fit its own personal agenda, and not that of the people following it.

It all depends upon what you regard as solid proof. There are many other historians besides Josephus. Most all must be dug from the dusty old books of rejected authors simply because history belongs to those who wish to use it for their own purpose. Even modern America has re written history to suit their agenda and have re educated their children to believe many things that other, older nations do not accept as fact. So actually it all is a matter of who you want to believe.

Have you looked at the historical literature of Joseph of Arimathea and the Isle of Avalon? British and Roman history are both intermixed with fantastic tradition as well as written history. In that mix you can find that Joseph of Arimathea (Jesus' uncle) was a most important player in the history of Jesus and not even mentioned by most religious sources. Uncle Joe was a very rich and influential man in both Jewish and Roman history and can bring much light to his nephew Jesus. He not only lost his position of power and wealth shortly after the death of Jesus but became a central figure of evangelizing Britain. Few people have even realized this.

By Robert Mock
January 2009
"In Judea, when Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Roman Provincial Council under the rule of Pontius Pilate, so he was protected with the power of the governor’s office of the Roman Empire in Judea. Joseph and Pilate had one other potential private alliance with each other. Joseph had a long standing relationship with the powerful and elite of the royal family dynasty of the Silurians in southern Wales on the island of Britannia."

From here you can dig into the dusty old history books of ancient Roman and Silurians history and it would amaze you to learn that Jesus is well documented by many other sources other than the biblical manuscripts which also number well over 5,000. Now you will not find this in seminaries or bible schools or in university history classes simply because it does not suite their doctrines or academia. If you are an interested avid seeker of the unusual and unaccepted methods of learning then all of this is out there in the old forgotten books of the ancients. It is a life time of seeking truth as well as entertaining the mind with unlimited knowledge.

If my advice is not too forward I would recommend you look at "BibleSearchers.com" You will be amazed at the wealth of information and leads you can get from these writings. Wishing you the best.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Thanks for the English "brush up lesson"; your confusing me using irony instead of mild sarcasm/sardonicism.

No, I was alluding to the "glad you cleared that up" remark. It was sarcasm/irony. You cleared nothing up (nor did anything need clearing up).

You are not certain that Jesus existed

He did not exist.

What was Jesus (if existed) if not an Essene?

Fiction, mythology.

Your point was he never existed and have yet to offer your opinion as to why you believe so; deflection, or you are purposely trying to expand an argument that's not there.

What argument? Read the thread title again, then my first response. Self explanatory.

Why not just answer the question, or this instead your quote "This shows clearly that we don't in fact, agree", what clearly shows? (not that anyone is reading this but I apologize in advance for the EXHAUSTIVE nitpickery).

I did answer the question the op proposed. It's normal for people who didn't exist to have no genuine historical references. Seems obvious enough.

Obviously if you feel he was crucified (as you clearly stated), then we disagree. Imaginary people aren't crucified...or anything else.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
It boggles my mind that there are still, at this late page number, there are STILL folks on this thread who claim there's no proof of Jesus' existence etc. Obviously truth and evidence are of no interest to such willfully blind bias.
Sigh.... given over to a delusion, indeed.
What a tragedy.

Not theirs to be felt as have no clue; only ours in knowing what they are missing.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

[I]VHB[/I] Thanks for the English "brush up lesson"; your confusing me using irony instead of mild sarcasm/sardonicism.

[I]Ergo sumnegative[/I] No, I was alluding to the "glad you cleared that up" remark. It was sarcasm/irony. You cleared nothing up (nor did anything need clearing up).

[I]VHB[/I] Yes it was clearly mild sarcasm; no IRONY THERE.

[I]Veteranhumanbeing[/I] You are not certain that Jesus existed

[I]Cogito Ergo[/I] He did not exist.

Again; how do you come to this conclusion? I might agree with you if you gave me an opinion I could respond to; ME playing Daniel Webster VS YOU the DEVIL.

[I]Veteranhumanbeing[/I] What was Jesus (if existed) if not an Essene? Fiction, mythology? Your point was he never existed and have yet to offer your opinion as to why you believe so; deflection, or you are purposely trying to expand an argument that's not there. Why not just answer the question, or this instead your quote "This shows clearly that we don't in fact, agree", what clearly shows? (not that anyone is reading this but I apologize in advance for the EXHAUSTIVE nitpickery).

[I] Cogito Ergo[/I] I did answer the question the op proposed. It's normal for people who didn't exist to have no genuine historical references. Seems obvious enough.Obviously if you feel he was crucified (as you clearly stated), then we disagree. Imaginary people aren't crucified...or anything else.

"Its normal for people who didn't exist to have no genuine historical references" and are they as NON EXISTANT PEOPLES proclaiming this EXACTLY HOW? (what methodology). I am not a crucifixion Affliction afficionato lover type. I'm certain the archetype of a crucifixion was a planned insert. Jesus lived but what dimension exactly (imaginary or not was an overlay; and made an impact on the last 2000 years like it or not here within the Western Hemisphere IMPACT GREATEST of concerns).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Again; how do you come to this conclusion? I might agree with you if you gave me an opinion I could respond to; ME playing Daniel Webster VS YOU the DEVIL.

It was never necessary for anyone to agree. The large number here who believe that an imaginary jewish zombie will give them eternity if they accept him via telepathic communication would generally make such hope a very forlorn one.

Though as you asked, very very briefly. There are no contemporary sources, nor do we really have genuine mention of any. The best sources seem to be the gospels. Yet no one knows who wrote them or when, only that it was generations removed (apologists usually go with the earliest time for obvious reasons). None of the other central characters (parents, 12/20 disciples etc) seem historical either. It is myth placed loosely in a historical period.

If you remove the nonsense/magic from the story, you aren't left with much. What little is left is almost as unlikely as the magic (the sanhedrin meeting, throwing money lenders from the temple, nonsense with Pilate and so on). It is also as unlikely that not one contemporary would mention a word not only of such unprecedented unlikely/amazing occurrences, but for someone who was known "far and wide" and "followed by multitudes" etc. The accounts are highly contradictory and plagiarised off each other (the whole religion is borrowed from earlier traditions), we don't really know what has been added to the copies we have by early christian charlatans (a favourite past time) and they are told in a way that is obviously and wildly fictitious/mythological.

The earliest mentions of jesus (by Paul/Saul) are "other worldly", not to mention the circumstances at the time, the part Rome eventually played and why it might have done this. There is no reason to consider Jesus any more real than any of the other mythical heroes. The story of Romulus (and Remus) are every bit as convincing (perhaps more so). At best he could have been "based on" a collection of people (possibly similar to Robin Hood), but more likely a collection of myths.

"Its normal for people who didn't exist to have no genuine historical references" and are they as NON EXISTANT PEOPLES proclaiming this EXACTLY HOW? (what methodology).

Non existent people don't proclaim anything. The followers of made up religious figures do however. We have a long list of similar heroes of mythology who we accept as myth (despite having been believed as real at various times) yet are expected to believe one (who has no better evidence and is consistent with the others) was actually real? Don't think so.

Jesus lived but what dimension exactly (imaginary or not was an overlay; and made an impact on the last 2000 years like it or not here within the Western Hemisphere IMPACT GREATEST of concerns).

Jesus didn't exist, the stories allow him to exist in the imagination. I agree that it's spread via Rome had a great cultural impact on the western world (though not always in a good way).

Interesting to note that acceptance of this nonsense was prolific in the "dark ages" but has slowly declined since the threats of torture etc have been removed. Outside of a few fundamentalist populations such as the US (the western world's equivalent to the middle east) it is more of a "cultural inheritance" where jesus represents no more than an ideal, amongst a growing trend towards secularism (and even atheism).

This also overlooks the huge populations and cultures for which christianity is basically irrelevant.

Europa had a whole continent named after her (and a moon!). Romulus founded Rome itself. There most definitely are people who still worship Anubis. Obviously every bit as real as jesus was.

So (IMO) even to believe in a historical jesus (minus miracles etc) still relies on nothing but faith.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Thanks for the English "brush up lesson"; your confusing me using irony instead of mild sarcasm/sardonicism.

No, I was alluding to the "glad you cleared that up" remark. It was sarcasm/irony. You cleared nothing up (nor did anything need clearing up).

You are not certain that Jesus existed

He did not exist.

What was Jesus (if existed) if not an Essene?

Fiction, mythology.

Your point was he never existed and have yet to offer your opinion as to why you believe so; deflection, or you are purposely trying to expand an argument that's not there.

What argument? Read the thread title again, then my first response. Self explanatory.

Why not just answer the question, or this instead your quote "This shows clearly that we don't in fact, agree", what clearly shows? (not that anyone is reading this but I apologize in advance for the EXHAUSTIVE nitpickery).

I did answer the question the op proposed. It's normal for people who didn't exist to have no genuine historical references. Seems obvious enough.

Obviously if you feel he was crucified (as you clearly stated), then we disagree. Imaginary people aren't crucified...or anything else.

how do you know He didn't exist?

how many others existed at that time, that have no references?

i don't think there were paparazzi around back then.

originally posted by: tsingtao

how do you know He didn't exist?

That's a variation of the "unicorn" argument (how do you know they didn't/don't exist?). It's because it is mythology, not history.

how many others existed at that time, that have no references?

Special pleading?

There were mentions of various and reasonably insignificant people called (in anglicised lingo )Jesus.

Though none that were claimed to have walked on water, healed sick and lame, known far and wide, followed by multitudes, had the sanhedrin convene on passover/eve, threw money lenders out of a large and heavily guarded temple (kung fu jesus), an extremely improbable trial by Pilate...and so on. Leaving out the magic, it's extremely unlikely jesus wouldn't have got a mention. Unless of course.....


There is nothing (in a historical sense) to indicate he existed. What is claimed to indicate this, does not and is far more consistent with storytelling/ mythology. Believers seem to at least realise how ridiculous the story is, so they settle for agreement that he must have at least been historical. Even that's unlikely.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: tsingtao

how do you know He didn't exist?

That's the "unicorn" argument (how do you know they didn't/don't exist?).

how many others existed at that time, that have no references?

Special pleading?

There were mentions of various and reasonably insignificant people called (in anglicised lingo )Jesus.

Though none that were claimed to have walked on water, healed sick and lame, known far and wide, followed by multitudes, had the sanhedrin convene on passover eve, threw money lenders out of a large and heavily guarded temple (kung fu jesus), an extremely improbable trial by Pilate...and so on. Leaving out the magic, it's extremely unlikely jesus wouldn't have got a mention. Unless of course.....


There is nothing (in a historical sense) to indicate he existed. What is claimed to indicate this, does not and is far more consistent with storytelling/ mythology. Believers seem toat least realise how ridiculous the story is, so they settle for agreement that he must have at least been historical. Even that's unlikely.

One you can not discount the bible itself it is a reference people argue it was written after wards however throughout history accounts were written after the fact. For example Homer are first reference of him. The earliest manuscript copy of the Iliad dates to 400 BC. Meaning the only proof of Homer or the Iliad being accurate is from 500 years after the death of Homer. Caesar lived from 100-44 BC and the earliest manuscript copy of his writings dates back to 900 AD, putting our best evidence of Caesar ever existing 1,000 years after his death. And there are 10 copies of ancient manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic Wars. So the earliest confirmation of Jesus is manuscripts like the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri it dates to between 50 AD to AD ad meaning just after his death. That aside Here some simple proof the Romans were trying to kill of christians and destroy the religion. There was a poem written by Lucian of Samosate making fun of christians however this is confirmation of Jesus the man none the less.

“He was second only to that one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world.”
“Having convinced themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, the poor wretches despise death and most willingly give themselves to it. Moreover, that first lawgiver of theirs persuaded them that they are all brothers the moment they transgress and deny the Greek gods and begin worshiping that crucified sophist and living by his laws.”
“They scorn all possessions without distinction and treat them as community property. They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time.”

Scholars at this point have no dubt of his existence now being the son of god is another matter entirely. However if you truly want to see Jesus in a historical context read this its rather good.

openlibrary.org...

a reply to: dragonridr

You need to realize that the word "Christ" was used and claimed by many others before, during and after the advent of Jesus, if he existed at all. There were people already using the title of "Christian" while Jesus was still alive, if he ever really was, and after.

Scholars at this point have no dubt of his existence

Not all scholars. Many have and are questioning the existence of an historical Jesus Christ. The evidence is sketchy at best.

originally posted by: dragonridr

One you can not discount the bible itself it is a reference

Certainly can and most assuredly have.

If you're going to seriously compare Jesus to Julius Caesar as being in any way similar historically, there is little point in this conversation.

Here some simple proof the Romans were trying to kill of christians and destroy the religion.

So what? Christianity had a long time to wipe out entire cultures after this. Nothing to do with a historical/mythical Jesus.

The Jesus claim is unsupported in two, seemingly relevant ways.

1. It is unsupported historically.
2. The version believed by followers also contradicts reality as we know it.

It is consistent with mythology.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dragonridr

You need to realize that the word "Christ" was used and claimed by many others before, during and after the advent of Jesus, if he existed at all. There were people already using the title of "Christian" while Jesus was still alive, if he ever really was, and after.

Scholars at this point have no dubt of his existence

Not all scholars. Many have and are questioning the existence of an historical Jesus Christ. The evidence is sketchy at best.

Which is it arguing the existence of Jesus or christians? Now the first followers of Jesus was known as apocalyptic jews.They were mostly from the area of jerusalem.They believed a savior was coming as foretold in the torah AKA Christ. He was supposed to be a mediator who would create a new covenant and bring on mans eventual bond with god. By the way many claimed to be Christ your argument is irrelevant to the thread i believe its asking if Jesus existed. If you want to debate if he was Christ well you cant its a matter of faith.

a reply to: dragonridr

Which is it arguing the existence of Jesus or christians?

It's both. You're arguing for the historical existence of Jesus based on the fact that there were "Christians" at the time in question.

By the way many claimed to be Christ your argument is irrelevant to the thread i believe its asking if Jesus existed

No it's not. Your proof, as well as others in this thread, for the historical existence of Jesus is the fact that people wrote about those pesky Christians, claiming them to have been followers of your Jesus, when there is NO PROOF of that at all.

Christians were around before the advent of Jesus. FACT

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dragonridr

Which is it arguing the existence of Jesus or christians?

It's both. You're arguing for the historical existence of Jesus based on the fact that there were "Christians" at the time in question.

By the way many claimed to be Christ your argument is irrelevant to the thread i believe its asking if Jesus existed

No it's not. Your proof, as well as others in this thread, for the historical existence of Jesus is the fact that people wrote about those pesky Christians, claiming them to have been followers of your Jesus, when there is NO PROOF of that at all.

Christians were around before the advent of Jesus. FACT

Well no not exactly Jesus was a jew and his sect of jews was not all that different from what was main stream at the time. Several people had claimed to be the savior of the jews but none other than Jesus actually pulled it off mostly because of the tenacity of his disciples. Before them there was no christianity that became a religion through his teachings others had different teachings including people like John the Baptist. But eventually his followers converted to Jesus as well. But no strictly speaking there were no christians before Christ since they had no teachings and relied on Judaism. Did Christianity borrow from other religions of course it did it wasnt created in a vacuum however Jesus was very radical for his time. And literally reversed thousands of years of worship overnight.

Just this fact alone proves his existence since if he didnt Jews and Romans would have easily destroyed the myth since they saw christianity as a threat.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

[I]VHB[/I] Again; how do you come to this conclusion? I might agree with you if you gave me an opinion I could respond to; ME playing Daniel Webster VS YOU the DEVIL.

[I]CES[/I] It was never necessary for anyone to agree. The large number here who believe that an imaginary jewish zombie will give them eternity if they accept him via telepathic communication would generally make such hope a very forlorn one.

Jewish Zombie? that telepaths to living people (different frequency variation/vibration here), rotting brain verses one that is filled with hope and faith in an afterlife; for one that has the belief a soul is eternal. Do you think your spirit dies with/when your meat sack is worn out; your heart has beaten its billionth pulse?

[I]CES[/I] Though as you asked, very very briefly. There are no contemporary sources, nor do we really have genuine mention of any. The best sources seem to be the gospels. Yet no one knows who wrote them or when, only that it was generations removed (apologists usually go with the earliest time for obvious reasons). None of the other central characters (parents, 12/20 disciples etc) seem historical either. It is myth placed loosely in a historical period.

I'm not much of a scripture devote because they have no reference for the basic truths I know to be mine alone (everyone is different and comes into a personal enlightenment regarding that truth tailored to their experiences specifically). What is that truth? that you are not the human you think you think you are; this is all fakery a 'learning to be human' school you've come to in order to accelerate your souls progress within the AUO system.

[I]CES[/I] If you remove the nonsense/magic from the story, you aren't left with much. What little is left is almost as unlikely as the magic (the sanhedrin meeting, throwing money lenders from the temple, nonsense with Pilate and so on). It is also as unlikely that not one contemporary would mention a word not only of such unprecedented unlikely/amazing occurrences, but for someone who was known "far and wide" and "followed by multitudes" etc. The accounts are highly contradictory and plagiarised off each other (the whole religion is borrowed from earlier traditions), we don't really know what has been added to the copies we have by early christian charlatans (a favourite past time) and they are told in a way that is obviously and wildly fictitious/mythological.

Rings true for every other system of faith/dogma that has ever existed; its just following the pattern of an archetype that is proven to work. Horus was the first template for Jesus for instance. You really should not be taking these things so seriously; as most of it is meant to be understood as a 'designed metaphor'. Thanks for explaining, I now have a general idea of your thought process. Don't think I also do not feel cheated in that the Universe will not automatically disclose its intentions to me or for me. That was never its purpose; you have to work at it in order to understand how and why you incarnated (lazybones).