Yes, I've read quite a few of them. It boils down to the the same reasons they argue that the books of the bible are "authentic." Or the Vedas. Or the Illiad. Or the writings of Caesar.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Overwhelming Historical Proof: Why do you doubt Jesus?
- Thread starter Animore
- Start date
roger1440
I do stuff
Lets say Jesus fulfilled all these nifty prophecies. How is it no one seems to know about it except the small handful of people who wrote the gospels? There are no eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus outside of the New Testament.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Lets say Jesus fulfilled all these nifty prophecies. How is it no one seems to know about it except the small handful of people who wrote the gospels? There are no eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus outside of the New Testament.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
According to Josephus, scribes were officials at all levels of government. And there are other accounts in that. Even if "winners" of history who try suppress don't always succeed. I actually think we should have all of it. For example a man on the united nations peace counsel who happen to be present for every genocide writes up 6 pointed peace plans yet genocide seems to follow. They keep calling the man back with a track record like his I wouldn't be quick to do so and not. Yet he pays someone to write his own biography. Do you see what I mean?
By the way there are other accounts.
By the way there are other accounts.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I personally have no problem believing that Jesus never existed, you can learn from any story that has certain morals or spiritual meaning, the story itself doesn't need to be true, its where the story points to that matters, arguing over the story being true or not is a wast of time in my book.
Last edited:
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
I'm a Dora the explorer fan sometimes too.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes self exploration is certainly needed in finding the truth.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
I know myself, mostly there is more out there.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes that which is out there is also in there, its all One, but yes, what is seen with our senses out there is wonderful, that is why we came here from the Source, to enjoy our creations.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Also means you wouldn't be able to stop what you cant see but I'll pray for ya. Both are good for each other.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes, and I'll pray for you.
roger1440
I do stuff
Quote an eye witness account.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There's historicity as to the scriptures themselves. Its the content and narrative that is wanting. It has no revelance nor substance in that regard. Its certainly not a history book. That's a certainty.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Why does it need to be historically correct?
Why does Jesus need to exist?
What about his physical Crucifixion helps you spiritually?
Wouldn't it be true that your spirituality be based on the spirit of Christ and not the physical nature of his existence, historical "evidence", and miracles?
What is wrong with believing in Christ?
TruthEnder
Member
Perhaps a better path is asking yourself why a religion which stems from the heart is of any value? I am sure you will find something which we can agree on, have a useful debate about, teach and learn from each other.
I said I would add to this discussion by telling you why I doubt Jesus, but if you are not up for giving your thoughts on it then I don't want to post in false hopes you might read it, or try to force some sort of debate out of you.
No, in fact it does not. Wilfull ignorance and stupid statements serve you poorly.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
You're going to have a real problem trying to convince people that Biblical passages are evidence for Jesus being the Messiah, especially considering that the New Testament itself was specifically written for the purpose of selling Jesus as the Messiah...
This might make a great sermon, but it's a crappy argument.
First of all, even if we assume your list of 5 options here being the only possible outcomes, I do hope you realize that the least likely is #5, which interestingly enough is the position that you hold.
If I told you that I was once able to levitate a toothpick above my arm for an unnatural amount of time, would I be:
- A liar
- A delusional psychotic
- Someone who never actually made claims of magic powers
- A great mystical soul, not fully understood,
- The one Great Magician, embodiment of supernatural abilities on Earth
I'd challenge you to recognize the delusions of grandeur that you hold about yourself. If that task seems too difficult, then I ask you to recognize the daily delusions that people around you have about themselves. Ego is a very powerful thing and people are prone to wild imaginations. It's not outside of the norm for regular people to believe that they are something special, is it? These personal nuances don't make you (or anyone else) a liar, a delusional psychotic, or even something close to what their delusion implies. They're just part of personal realities.
Until you can support the idea that the historical Jesus actually said or did any of the things written about in the Bible, then all of this is just wild hyperbole anyway, isn't it?
Which tomb, exactly? Do you know, specifically, which tomb Jesus' body was placed in before it was miraculously removed, clothes gently folded on the floor?
I'm not going to go point by point here, but I will refute your claim that the Romans didn't take the body (assuming any of this happened in the first place...)
Your own Gospels talk about how the Roman guards recognized and commented on the mystery of Jesus at his death, don't they? They make clear mention of the recognition on his relation to god well before the body was lowered, wrapped, and entombed. (Matthew 27:54, Luke 23:47) Those same gospels also showed the relative ease with which they were dispatched from their post by an "angel". And historically, it's simply not true that the Romans cared one way or another about what was happening in Israel in ~40 CE. It was a hot and tumultuous political outpost, much like it is now. Your suggestion that there was this active movement against the new growing faith of Christianity is grossly mistaken. It's a delusion that Christians like to hold as it elevates the roots of their faith to something more than what they actually were.
Please cite for me where Saul/Paul has any interaction with the physical Jesus. Please validate any of Saul's claims about his life before conversion.
You won't be able to do it without stretching the limits of honesty.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate
Flavius Josephus, jewish historian.. I got to find some of things but like usual when you research lets just say Jesus, Jordan river, you get only part of the actual references like a concordance. For example I research a word and I get everything from people person experiences some hints to actual leads, to I have my own physical concordance theres a dozen more references to that word and yet online concordance only tells theres 4? People make websites and knowledge is limited.
And please, and give me a second while get past the herodian gemetria christos boy murder cult/kaba, they get alittle sunk holding that stone (don't like it) and find some of the research that I did find before including pillar with a warning to nero that didn't win the remifications after to gaius Claudius and so on..
Is There Any Evidence that Jesus Existed?
Skeptics like Ellen Johnson [former President of American Atheists] cite the “lack of secular history” for Jesus as evidence that he didn’t exist.
Yet there is very little documentation for any person from the time of Christ. Most ancient historical documents have been destroyed through the centuries, by wars, fires, and pillaging, or simply through weathering and deterioration.
According to E. M. Blaiklock, who has catalogued most of the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire, “practically nothing exists from the time of Christ”, even for great secular leaders such as Julius Caesar.¹ Yet no historian questions Caesar’s existence.
And since he wasn’t a great political or military leader, Darrell Bock notes, “It is amazing and significant that Jesus shows up at all in the sources we have.”²
So, who are these sources Bock mentions? Which early historians who wrote of Jesus did not have a Christian agenda? First of all, let’s look to Jesus’ enemies.
Jewish Historians: The Jews had the most to gain by denying Jesus’ existence. But they always regarded him as real. “Several Jewish writings refer to Jesus as a real person whom they opposed.³
Noted Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of James, “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”4 If Jesus wasn’t a real person why wouldn’t Josephus have said so?
In another somewhat controversial passage, Josephus speaks more extensively of Jesus.5
At this time there was a man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and he died. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was thought to be the Messiah.”6
Although some of his words are in dispute, Josephus’ confirmation here of Jesus’ existence is widely accepted by scholars.7
Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines writes, “Even the most bitter opponents of Christianity never expressed any doubt as to Jesus having really lived.”8
World historian Will Durant notes that no Jew or Gentile from the first-century ever denied the existence of Jesus.9
Roman Historians: Early Roman historians wrote primarily of events and people important to their empire. Since Jesus wasn’t of immediate importance to the political or military affairs of Rome, very little Roman history referenced him. However, two important Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, do acknowledge Jesus as a real person.
Tacitus (a.d. 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”10
Suetonius (a.d. 69-130) wrote of “Chrestus” as an instigator. Most scholars believe this is a reference to Christ. Suetonius also wrote of Christians having been persecuted by Nero in a.d. 64.11
Roman Officials: Christians were considered enemies of Rome because of their worship of Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar. The following Roman government officials, including two Caesars, wrote letters from that perspective, mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.12
Pliny the Younger was an imperial magistrate under Emperor Trajan. In a.d. 112, Pliny wrote to Trajan of his attempts to force Christians to renounce Christ, whom they “worshiped as a god.”
Emperor Trajan (a.d. 56-117) wrote letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.
Emperor Hadrian (a.d. 76-136) wrote about Christians as followers of Jesus.
Pagan Sources: Several early pagan writers briefly mention Jesus or Christians prior to the end of the second century. These include Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosate.13 Thallus’ remarks about Jesus were written in a.d. 52, about twenty years after Christ.
In total, nine early non-Christian secular writers mention Jesus as a real person within 150 years of his death. Interestingly, that is the same number of secular writers who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during Jesus’ time. If we were to consider Christian and non-Christian sources, there are forty-two who mention Jesus, compared to just ten for Tiberius.14
Historical Facts about Jesus:
These early non-Christian sources provide the following facts about Jesus Christ:
- Jesus was from Nazareth.
- Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.
- Jesus was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
- Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.
- Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats.
- Jesus’ disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
- Jesus’ disciples lived moral lives and worshiped Christ as God.
Gary Habarmas notes, “In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century.”16 According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, ”These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”17
website http://y-jesus.com/is-there-any-evidence-from-secular-sources-that-jesus-even-existed/
Last edited:
No, it's called skepticism. We have ancient documents written by someone who had a purpose, which have been copied and translated by other people who had other purposes and varying levels of ability through (in many cases) many generations of copies without surviving traces, which are now studied and translated from mostly later copies by modern people who have other purposes and lack full knowledge of the contexts under which they were created and/or translated over the millennia.
I appreciate the hard work that the scholars who study these things put in, but also recognize the limits on knowledge that we have and can even potentially acquire about ancient events--and the ways in which the stories have been handed down over time. When we have scholars arguing for instance over which words in the Gospels Jesus actually spoke, there is a chain of assumptions there that a true skeptic will balk at. Likewise, we read the writings by Julius Caesar, and lacking truly independent sources for many of the records, assume that the accounts are true history. Yet that rests on a chain of assumptions and rather limited independent evidence.
The same goes for virtually every ancient text or tradition. Some, of course, are better preserved than others, and have some independent evidence available in their support. But many are simply there, and that is really all we know about them.
So no, I am neither willfully ignorant, nor stupid with my statements. I am skeptical about claims about ancient texts.