Why there is not historic evidence of Jesus

[sv800]

I had a discussion today about any historical evidence of Jesus, not any of them...most are fakes from dark medieval times even the stone that covered the grave. I'm asking myself why????

[David Cain]

Two thousand years is a long time. Evidence gets lost, looted, degraded and destroyed.

There is probably no trace of most people who ever walked this earth.

[TexasSky]

There is historical evidence of Christ.
More so than there is of the existence of Socrates.

Some of the ancient evidence takes time to find, and often the findings are not as widely publicized as the nay-sayers doubts are.

For years they said there was no Pontius Pilate.
But Tacitus speaks of him.
And then in 1961, at Caesarea Martima, they found the Pilate Stone, which identifies Pilate as "Prefect of Judaea".


For years they said there was no evidence that Nazareth existed in biblical times. Then they found an Aramaic list notifying families that they no longer needed to send priests from their village to serve in the temple. The list was written in just a few years after Christ's death on the Cross, and it shows the priest, and the priests' home village. Nazareth appears on the list 24 times.

Further study showed that in the age of Christ, Nazareth was a small fishing village. They found the marker for the village. This village had less than 100 inhabitants in the day of Christ. Digging at the location they found a roman bath house.

It is only in recent years that the existance of Jesus of Nazareth has ever been questioned. Interestingly enough, these questions do not come from those who might gain the most if they could somehow destroy Christianity. Jewish historians, Jewish archaeologists, Muslim archaeologists have never questioned the historical evidence that a man named Jesus changed the world. Only modern people try this gambit.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by sv800

I had a discussion today about any historical evidence of Jesus, not any of them...most are fakes from dark medieval times even the stone that covered the grave. I'm asking myself why????

Why do you care?

Are you a atheist seeking proof?

The past doesn't really, exist.. everything is going on right now.. the christ idea exists in our consciousness but I think common sense will tell you his message is distorted by humans mainly for power/money or at least the illusion of power..

As I have stated per my teachers it is my understanding.. christ taught self empowerment (loa back in the day) if he were alive today (technically is) but I mean re-incarnated in our time and was teaching these things.. he'd be a LOA teacher probably

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by sv800

I had a discussion today about any historical evidence of Jesus, not any of them...most are fakes from dark medieval times even the stone that covered the grave. I'm asking myself why????

Why are you asking why?

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by TexasSky

There is historical evidence of Christ.
More so than there is of the existence of Socrates.

Point us to it please.

[MidasGirl]

Why there is not historic evidence of Jesus

The story of the birth and life of Jesus mirrors so many of the mythical stories told at the time throughout all the ancient "civilized" societies. Every aspect of it. And yes, I know it was prophecied in the old testament that a king of the jews would be born.....blah blah blah. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to create a story that mirrors a prophecy from many years ago. Which explains why the Jews are still waiting for their messiah.

Clearly the places, events and even many of the people mentioned around Jesus' have been historically documented. I don't doubt there might have been a greatly enlightened Jew (also extremely radical and very liberal) born around that time that his followers used to create a story to form a religion around. Who knows? There is no reason there are historical accounts of many great philosophers and spiritual gurus who lived way before him. Yet the only people who documented a Jesus existence were his followers? Smells fishy.

[aelle]

I don't think historians question the fact that Jesus, the historical character, a Jewish teacher and political dissident who was sentenced to death during the first century of our era, existed. It is a well established fact.
All the religious folklore around his character, however, is very questionable. And there is of course no historical evidence that he was the Messiah of the old testament or the son of God. That's a theological debate entirely separate from the historic one, and up to you to believe in or not (we all know faith does not root in proof).

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

Yet the only people who documented a Jesus existence were his followers? Smells fishy.

Apostle Paul and Luke were not among his disciples but wrote quite a lot about him. Who wrote about Socrates, Plato, etc, their enemies?

[themaster]

There are a lot of ideas and words in society that have no proof at all about them..

- Telekinesis
- Jesus
- Atlantis

(for example)

And yet all these words have most immediate understanding for most individuals on the planet.. the point is these ideas/energies exist but not necessarily in their HUMAN myth form..

One thing you can never get a christian to answer is.. if the bible is god's word.. how come we can burn it?

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by themaster

One thing you can never get a christian to answer is.. if the bible is god's word.. how come we can burn it?

If man was created by God how come he/she can be killed? The Bible is the Written Word of God written on paper by people under the direction of the Spirit of God. Is a degree a piece of paper or is the paper a confirmation?

[sv800]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

Why are you asking why?

Recently, my wife showed some atheist behavior after some spiritual attacks, sometimes I doubt. I was born Catholic but I left traditional church and I follow my own path. I believe in Jesus as a Master and Guide.
This question came from a discussion with my wife.

[MissVlo]

None of us here have met Einstein, for example, and yet reliable reports of his accomplishments prove that he did exist. The same reasoning applies to Jesus, what was written about him and the visible evidence of the influence he has on humanity prove beyond doubt that he did exist and we can find evidence of Jesus’ existence in what secular historians wrote about him and his followers. Here's an example..

Consider the testimony of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who was a Pharisee. He referred to Jesus Christ in the book Jewish Antiquities. There Josephus said: “[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200) Yes, a Pharisee, a member of the sect many of whose adherents were avowed enemies of Jesus, acknowledged the existence of “James, the brother of Jesus.” That's #1

Here is #2 -- Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world’s greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero’s blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: “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.” The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible.

And yet another one -- Another writer who commented on Jesus’ followers was Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia. In about the year 111 C.E., Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking how to handle Christians. People who were falsely accused of being Christians, wrote Pliny, would repeat an invocation to the gods and worship the statue of Trajan, just to prove that they were not Christians. Pliny continued: “There is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into any of these compliances.” That testifies to the reality of the existence of the Christ, whose followers were prepared to give their lives for their belief in him.

After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopedia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

If Christ's enemies didn't doubt his existence, why should we?

This is more a matter of faith than anything else but here is the proof if you really need it. There is plenty more but I don't have the time to post it.

[cylon]

One way of finding evidence would be stories and accounts of miracles from Jesus that weren't in the Bible. If he had such a large effect (waling on water would have gotten out real quick) there would be first hand accounts of it all over the place.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by sv800

Recently, my wife showed some atheist behavior after some spiritual attacks, sometimes I doubt. I was born Catholic but I left traditional church and I follow my own path. I believe in Jesus as a Master and Guide.
This question came from a discussion with my wife.

Ah, I see. Cool. So you’re seeking to strengthen your faith in Jesus as a master and guide then? Did your wife's atheist behavior disturb you?

[Will Edwards]

I don't generally join in with this kind of debate however, it is a fact that Jesus was mentioned by the leading historians of the day: both Josephus and Tacitus. There really is no question that he existed.

Everyone is perfectly entitled to their own beliefs, but this issue is not a matter of faith - it is a matter of fact.

Will

[MissVlo]

Guys, think about the Sermon on the Mount: “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.” “Take good care not to practice your righteousness in front of men.” “Never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties.” “Do not .*.*. throw your pearls before swine.” “Keep on asking, and it will be given you.” “All things .*.*. that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them.” “Go in through the narrow gate.” “By their fruits you will recognize them.” “Every good tree produces fine fruit.”—Matthew 5:39; 6:1,34; 7:6, 7, 12, 13, 16,17.

The influence that this sermon has on many peoples and cultures eloquently testifies to the existence of “the great teacher.”

Let us imagine that someone fabricated a figure called Jesus Christ. Suppose that person was clever enough to come up with the teachings credited to Jesus in the Bible. Would he not contrive to make Jesus and his teachings as palatable as possible to people in general? Yet, the apostle Paul observed: “Both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness.” (1Corinthians 1:22,23) The message of Christ impaled was attractive neither to the Jews nor to the nations. That was, though, the Christ that first-century Christians proclaimed. Why the depiction of the Christ impaled? The only satisfactory explanation would be that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures recorded the truth about Jesus’ life and death.

Another line of reasoning supporting Jesus’ historicity is found in the untiring preaching of his teachings by his followers. Only some 30 years after Jesus started his ministry, Paul could say that the good news “was preached in all creation that is under heaven.” (Colossians 1:23) Yes, Jesus’ teachings spread throughout the ancient world despite opposition. Paul, who was himself persecuted as a Christian, wrote: “If Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain.” (1Corinthians 15:12-17) If preaching a Christ who had not been resurrected would be in vain, preaching a Christ who had never existed would be even more in vain. As we read in the report by Pliny the Younger, first-century Christians were willing to die for their belief in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for Christ because he was real; he had walked the earth and had lived as the Gospel accounts record. Our salvation depends on whether or not we believe in that.

It IS more about faith than facts as shown in Hebrews 11:6 "Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please him well, for he that approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him."

Peace!

[themaster]

Jesus taught self empowerment.. if he were alive today (and technically he is) and teaching.. he'd be teaching today’s equivalent of LOA

But the truth is there is no evidence of his existence.. and there never was.. there however is some ideas and beliefs in play..

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by themaster

Jesus taught self empowerment.. if he were alive today (and technically he is) and teaching.. he'd be teaching today’s equivalent of LOA

But the truth is there is no evidence of his existence.. and there never was.. there however is some ideas and beliefs in play..

Someone just posted a bit of evidence that he indeed did exist. I'm not seeing any refutation, just a claim to the opposite.

I do believe he existed. As it was mentioned, there's less evidence for people such as Socrates, yet no one questions his existence. I think it is mostly because people know if Jesus didn't exist, then there's nothing to be done to disprove Christianity.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Someone just posted a bit of evidence that he indeed did exist.

There is evidence of the past??? Really?????

Prove it!!!

Ohh.. wait you can't.. you can't prove yesterday existed or 2,000 years ago existed.. you can't look at a rock and say this was alive 2,000 years ago.. so obviously jesus touched it.. you can read a manuscript in Sumerian written via carbon dating circa of 730 B.C. but you can't PROVE it.. cause there is no PAST.. there is just a purposeful carrying forward of the PAST's ideas in the present..

One cannot even prove that a SINGLE word, I repeat a single word written on a ancient manuscript is not a LIE.. the truth is there is no past.. all of life is right now.. your birth, your death.. ALL right NOW.. EVEN jesus or someone else getting punished on a cross.. right NOW

- end of lecture -

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by themaster

There is evidence of the past??? Really?????

Prove it!!!

Ohh.. wait you can't.. you can't prove yesterday existed or 2,000 years ago existed.. you can't look at a rock and say this was alive 2,000 years ago.. so obviously jesus touched it.. you can read a manuscript in Sumerian written via carbon dating circa of 730 B.C. but you can't PROVE it.. cause there is no PAST.. there is just a purposeful carrying forward of the PAST's ideas in the present..

One cannot even prove that a SINGLE word, I repeat a single word written on a ancient manuscript is not a LIE.. the truth is there is no past.. all of life is right now.. your birth, your death.. ALL right NOW.. EVEN jesus or someone else getting punished on a cross.. right NOW

- end of lecture -

While that's an interesting philosophical theory, it really holds no relevance in determining whether or not Jesus actually existed.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

While that's an interesting philosophical theory, it really holds no relevance in determining whether or not Jesus actually existed.

It's not theory.. it is truth.. but you are welcome to decide for yourself which it is..

You don't know that the things you see on the news.. the tv special you watch about "hitler" or anything TOLD to you is truth.. you just CHOOSE to accept it as such.. I am merely pointing out the CHOICE.. I am also pointing out that it is impossible to make a person with a definition that without being there themselves and even being there themselves that truth of his existence can still be denied..

But that's okay you believe what scientists, historians and others create in their imagination and believe is the truth with their “historical evidence”.. but you still couldn't prove he existed in any way shape or form.. because there is only NOW.. I say again the idea of jesus exists within our society and the belief does.. this is okay by me.. whether the individual really existed I could care LESS.. I have more important fun to be doing

[Mremedia]

Originally Posted by themaster

I have more important fun to be doing

..like trolling.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by themaster

It's not theory.. it is truth.. but you are welcome to decide for yourself which it is..

You don't know that the things you see on the news.. the tv special you watch about "hitler" or anything TOLD to you is truth.. you just CHOOSE to accept it as such.. I am merely pointing out the CHOICE.. I am also pointing out that it is impossible to make a person with a definition that without being there themselves and even being there themselves that truth of his existence can still be denied..

But that's okay you believe what scientists, historians and others create in their imagination and believe is the truth with their “historical evidence”.. but you still couldn't prove he existed in any way shape or form.. because there is only NOW.. I say again the idea of jesus exists within our society and the belief does.. this is okay by me.. whether the individual really existed I could care LESS.. I have more important fun to be doing

Technically, one can prove nothing 100%, but to use that to not actually believe anything is quite foolish. One can't prove gravity exists 100%; it only takes one instance of someone not falling to the ground when they jump to disprove it as we understand it. But for all intents and purposes, it exists, and is not worth questioning.

Similarly, if enough evidence exists that suggests that something occurred in the past, it is probably safe to believe that such person existed or such event occurred.

If you don't care either way, why are you here posting it is impossible to prove? You seem to have some vested interest.

[sv800]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

Ah, I see. Cool. So you’re seeking to strengthen your faith in Jesus as a master and guide then? Did your wife's atheist behavior disturb you?

No really but I'm keeping my eyes open. She is getting advice from religious friends she use to ask them who is GOD? It is amazing how they answer...they cannot give a persuasive answer.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Mremedia

..like trolling.

By your definition.. obviously yes..

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

If you don't care either way, why are you here posting it is impossible to prove? You seem to have some vested interest.

Nope.. none..

I am merely posting for my sake.. after all everything I believe is inside the self.. I use these forums to bounce out the theories I'm studying to test them.. if others learn the truth then fine.. if not.. not.. but I certainly wouldn't be posting if I wasn't having some form of fun, enjoyment or experience..

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by themaster

By your definition.. obviously yes..


Nope.. none..

I am merely posting for my sake.. after all everything I believe is inside the self.. I use these forums to bounce out the theories I'm studying to test them.. if others learn the truth then fine.. if not.. not.. but I certainly wouldn't be posting if I wasn't having some form of fun, enjoyment or experience..

The OP is asking about historical evidence. You have deviated from that into your own esoteric ideas about time - why don't you start a separate thread about them and your channelled teachings? I, for one, would be more than happy to contribute.

Would you have been so quick to jump in if the OP was asking about evidence of the existence of Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great? In terms of assessing the available manuscripts through the criteria of historicity, authenticity and veracity, the New Testament stands up very well as a reliable, trustworthy account - more reliable, in fact, than the evidence of some other ancient events which are taught as part of the school curriculum, and taken for granted as fact.

[Cantando]

In the book of Acts, there is no mention of Paul’s death, which occurred in 62 A.D. We can conclude that that is because the book was finished before Paul died. Luke was written before Acts (Acts was the second in a two-part book). Luke seems to incorporate parts of Mark, so Mark was earlier than Luke.

Therefore Mark was written no later than the early 60s at the latest, and more likely in the 50s. That puts a gap of less than 30 years.
All of Paul’s books were written before the gospels.

In addition, the fall of Jerusalem and the temple took place in 70 A.D. No book mentions this cataclysmic event that would have changed the understanding and messages of both Judaism and Christianity. We should conclude that all of the New Testament was written before 70 A.D, with the possible exception of Revelation.

We have 5,664 Greek manuscripts (uncials, minuscules and lectionaries). The earliest of these dates back to about 200 A.D. (approximately a 150-year gap). We have found a fragment of the book of John that dates back to 100-150 A.D. (less than a 100-year gap).

In addition we have 8,000-10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and 8,000 Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts. In all there are approximately 24,000 manuscripts in existence.

We also have 86,000 citations of the New Testament by early church fathers.
FF Bruce: “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament. The evidence for our NT writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams questioning”2
Sir Fredric Kenyon: “In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of a the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”3

In comparison to other works:
Biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrion and Plutarch in 50-60 A.D. – He died in 323 B.C., so that is a span of 400 years. Historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.
Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus. Written in 116 A.D, earliest remnant copy dates at 850 A.D.

The Jewish War, Josephus. Written in first century A.D., We only have nine Greek manuscripts and these date at 10th, 11th and 12th centuries.
Illiad, Homer. Written in 900 B.C., we have fewer than 650 Greek manuscripts today, the earliest of which dates to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. and following (a gap of over 1000 years). (Other resources say there is a manuscript which gives a gap of only 500 years – not sure which is correct).

The Gallic Wars, Caesar. Our first copy is 1000 years after it was written.
Catullus, three copies, earliest is 1600 years after it was written.
Herodotus, eight copies, earliest is 1300 years after it was written.

Extracted from:
Criticizing the New Testament

See also the book, 'Jesus in an Age of Controversy', by Douglas Groothuis which incisively covers this whole topic.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Cantando

In the book of Acts, there is no mention of Paul’s death, which occurred in 62 A.D. We can conclude that that is because the book was finished before Paul died. Luke was written before Acts (Acts was the second in a two-part book). Luke seems to incorporate parts of Mark, so Mark was earlier than Luke.

Therefore Mark was written no later than the early 60s at the latest, and more likely in the 50s. That puts a gap of less than 30 years.
All of Paul’s books were written before the gospels.

In addition, the fall of Jerusalem and the temple took place in 70 A.D. No book mentions this cataclysmic event that would have changed the understanding and messages of both Judaism and Christianity. We should conclude that all of the New Testament was written before 70 A.D, with the possible exception of Revelation.

We have 5,664 Greek manuscripts (uncials, minuscules and lectionaries). The earliest of these dates back to about 200 A.D. (approximately a 150-year gap). We have found a fragment of the book of John that dates back to 100-150 A.D. (less than a 100-year gap).

In addition we have 8,000-10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and 8,000 Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts. In all there are approximately 24,000 manuscripts in existence.

We also have 86,000 citations of the New Testament by early church fathers.
FF Bruce: “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament. The evidence for our NT writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams questioning”2
Sir Fredric Kenyon: “In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of a the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”3

In comparison to other works:
Biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrion and Plutarch in 50-60 A.D. – He died in 323 B.C., so that is a span of 400 years. Historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.
Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus. Written in 116 A.D, earliest remnant copy dates at 850 A.D.

The Jewish War, Josephus. Written in first century A.D., We only have nine Greek manuscripts and these date at 10th, 11th and 12th centuries.
Illiad, Homer. Written in 900 B.C., we have fewer than 650 Greek manuscripts today, the earliest of which dates to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. and following (a gap of over 1000 years). (Other resources say there is a manuscript which gives a gap of only 500 years – not sure which is correct).

The Gallic Wars, Caesar. Our first copy is 1000 years after it was written.
Catullus, three copies, earliest is 1600 years after it was written.
Herodotus, eight copies, earliest is 1300 years after it was written.

Extracted from:
Criticizing the New Testament

See also the book, 'Jesus in an Age of Controversy', by Douglas Groothuis which incisively covers this whole topic.

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo for the the plain and simple truth in a plain and simple way!

[pianoperformer]

Yes, it is explanations such as that that really persuade me. I'm curious what rebuttal people have, just out of curiosity?