PDA

View Full Version : Proof of Jesus



shrewsbury
04-25-2012, 01:33 AM
before i start this, let me first state I am a christian, you might not think so after reading this.

is there proof of jesus? most will point to the bible, but a book written about a religion based on one particular person would have to have them in it. you could say, there are many proven facts in the bible, such as roman rule of judea in jesus' time. but myths, legends, and even fairytales are based in some truth.
there is another factor why we can't use the bible, i will explain later.

so if we look outside the bible is there any proof? any at all?

lets start with any hard finds. well there is none, not only for jesus but even any member of his family. all finds have been found to be fakes, so we should look elsewhere.

how about jesus mentioned outside the bible? the first to come to mind is josephus. his works are considered historical fact by many, though curiously not all things he wrote is considered fact.

in his second book there is a famous passage which, at first look, seems to mention jesus. but when we see how jesus is described and what is said you notice it seems very out of place for a jew to say. and when we realize that these original texts are lost in time and have been translated and transcribed by christian monks for hundreds of years, it is easy to imagine things being tweaked to prove their point. this goes back to the bible. the earliest works of the new testament are not that early at all, most of what we have is transcriptions and translations, which was headed by the church.
we also have the issue of josephus merely retelling a story he heard, but did not know first hand.

there are only 4 other known works to speak of christians in antiquity, but each one seems more of a retelling than a witness and two do not mention jesus at all but merely his followers.

so you want some science based facts about jesus? well there are none. to some that would indicate it is false, to some it means nothing, and to others it proves it is all about faith.

you want historical facts from the bible? there are plenty, you want proof of biblical characters? then we are hanging on a thread

stlcardinalsfan
04-25-2012, 02:23 AM
thats why its called beleiving. u cant see wind but you can feel it,same difference

i have been saved but i am not a "christain", i am not christ like.i cuss/swear,and can be an A##hole,i live my life,but i do use common sense and have many morals that have bible ties (dosnt help that my dad was a pastor lol....kinda always lingers)

random but :
id have to say extremnist christains are going to hell just like all the other unsaved people they condem.

i hardly ever say anything about religion.

habsheaven
04-25-2012, 08:45 AM
thats why its called beleiving. u cant see wind but you can feel it,same difference

i have been saved but i am not a "christain", i am not christ like.i cuss/swear,and can be an A##hole,i live my life,but i do use common sense and have many morals that have bible ties (dosnt help that my dad was a pastor lol....kinda always lingers)

random but :
id have to say extremnist christains are going to hell just like all the other unsaved people they condem.

i hardly ever say anything about religion.

Same difference? Not likely! EVERYONE can FEEL the wind, or SEE its affects. The same cannot be said for religion. You are going to have to come up with a better analogy. That one fails.

ensbergcollector
04-25-2012, 10:12 AM
i love how josephus is regarded as a trustworthy historian until he mentions jesus and all the sudden we can't trust him. come on man. there are numerous references to jesus and his followers in the first century by non-religious writers. but for some reason, we trust everything they write until they mention jesus and then all the sudden we can't anymore. at the end of the day, if people want to doubt jesus or the writings about him, they will.

pghin08
04-25-2012, 10:14 AM
I know the Qu'ran mentions him a ton.

mrveggieman
04-25-2012, 10:17 AM
I know the Qu'ran mentions him a ton.


Most christians reject the Qu'ran without even reading it.

Star_Cards
04-25-2012, 10:31 AM
thats why its called beleiving. u cant see wind but you can feel it,same difference

i have been saved but i am not a "christain", i am not christ like.i cuss/swear,and can be an A##hole,i live my life,but i do use common sense and have many morals that have bible ties (dosnt help that my dad was a pastor lol....kinda always lingers)

random but :
id have to say extremnist christains are going to hell just like all the other unsaved people they condem.

i hardly ever say anything about religion.

umm... you can't see wind but it is a tangible thing. We don't believe in wind. It's there and you can actually feel it and we know what causes it and so on.

Star_Cards
04-25-2012, 10:40 AM
I don't know much about the facts of if Jesus actually existed. I've actually never really questioned if he existed or not. However, even if he was proved to have existed that doesn't give anymore credence to the supernatural aspects said to exist via christianity. If Jesus existed and went around teaching christianity it would be no different from L Ron Hubbard starting Scientology or Joseph Smith starting Mormonism (yes I get that starting a religion isn't exactly like claiming to be the son of God).

Basically, The historical existence of Jesus Christ still doesn't validate the supernatural claims of the religion.

shrewsbury
04-25-2012, 11:18 AM
you are right, it would prove nothing.

i would love to see these other sources, there are only 5 known, where and what are the rest?

the quran is a holy book, from the same lineage as jesus. so if you believe that then we can just use the bible as our source, which i was trying to avoid.

josephus works are often questioned, not only about a single passage about jesus, but many other things that have nothing to do with him. if jesus was so powerful in his days, why would josephus only write a couple of lines about him? i think there is more than a good chance this was added.

josephus was a jew until he died, so mentioning jesus as a great, wise man that was the christ, seems a bit out of place.

the biggest issue is many think that a book written in antiquity is the book we are reading now. josephus' works were written between 30-80 ad, but they do not exists. and the oldest transcription is from the 10th century, a 1000 years later. in those 1000 years the main source of translation and transcription was christian monks.

ensbergcollector
04-25-2012, 12:30 PM
you are right, it would prove nothing.

i would love to see these other sources, there are only 5 known, where and what are the rest?

the quran is a holy book, from the same lineage as jesus. so if you believe that then we can just use the bible as our source, which i was trying to avoid.

josephus works are often questioned, not only about a single passage about jesus, but many other things that have nothing to do with him. if jesus was so powerful in his days, why would josephus only write a couple of lines about him? i think there is more than a good chance this was added.

josephus was a jew until he died, so mentioning jesus as a great, wise man that was the christ, seems a bit out of place.

the biggest issue is many think that a book written in antiquity is the book we are reading now. josephus' works were written between 30-80 ad, but they do not exists. and the oldest transcription is from the 10th century, a 1000 years later. in those 1000 years the main source of translation and transcription was christian monks.

i get that you have major issues with the bible and how it was formed. however, there is an extremely small amount of questioning as far as josephus goes. there is no evidence and practically no suspicion about any copying of his entire works as well as the other historians that the same monks transcribed. It was only when people started wanting to deny the existence of jesus that people started questioning the writings of josephus. In no other writer did the monks "insert" passages about jesus nor is anything else in josephus questioned.

there are references to jesus or his followers in josephus, tacitus, suetonius, and pliny the younger. i will check for more but that is what i remember.

also, you say "there are only 5." exactly how many references should we expect there to be of a guy who lived in one area who to most of the world, was nothing?

shrewsbury
04-25-2012, 12:44 PM
josephus, tacitus, suetonius, and pliny the younger.

perhaps you should relook at these references. two of them have no mention of jesus at all, but christians. and none would be a first hand account, anyone can repeat a story they heard.


In no other writer did the monks "insert" passages about jesus nor is anything else in josephus questioned.

again do some research, the writers mentioned above are in question as well.

i do agree that anything to do with jesus most will try to prove it as a fake. but you have to see the other side, how many people have faked things to try and prove jesus was real?

i don't have an issue with the bible, but how it was put together, but i actually believe the bible to be the truth. but i would be silly not to question the transcriptions and translations of thousands of years. i would also be foolish to leave out other works deemed not suitable for the bible, because the church in 300 ad said so.

ensbergcollector
04-25-2012, 12:49 PM
perhaps you should relook at these references. two of them have no mention of jesus at all, but christians. and none would be a first hand account, anyone can repeat a story they heard.



again do some research, the writers mentioned above are in question as well.

i do agree that anything to do with jesus most will try to prove it as a fake. but you have to see the other side, how many people have faked things to try and prove jesus was real?

i don't have an issue with the bible, but how it was put together, but i actually believe the bible to be the truth. but i would be silly not to question the transcriptions and translations of thousands of years. i would also be foolish to leave out other works deemed not suitable for the bible, because the church in 300 ad said so.

i don't need to relook at anything because I know they reference christians, but they also reference the christ who the christians worship or are following.

the writers are only questions in the last century by people who have an agenda to discredit the existence of jesus. no independent/neutral scholar has ever questioned josephus or the monks who transcribed his works.

I understand your suspicion in regards to how scripture was put into cannon. I have had a lot of the same questions because my opinion of the catholic church, especially at that time, is very low. However, I would ask that you use the same level of suspicion when thinking of those who "oppose" all writings referring to jesus.

shrewsbury
04-25-2012, 12:57 PM
i can respect that, and i do.

i am just trying to point out that no matter what, no one can prove or disprove jesus, his life, or his actions. there is very little evidence and any of it can and will be questioned.


but they also reference the christ who the christians worship or are following

no mention of jesus, but i guess if they say christian then christ would part of that. but a reference to a religious group is different than mentioning jesus in the time he was on earth.

ensbergcollector
04-25-2012, 01:04 PM
i can respect that, and i do.

i am just trying to point out that no matter what, no one can prove or disprove jesus, his life, or his actions. there is very little evidence and any of it can and will be questioned.



no mention of jesus, but i guess if they say christian then christ would part of that. but a reference to a religious group is different than mentioning jesus in the time he was on earth.


I completely understand people who deny jesus' christhood. I honestly don't understand to people who deny his existence. there is a very proportional amount of references to him. No one would or should expect that the references to him would be any more common than they are. If someone reads a name in one first century historical account, no one questions it. But if jesus is referenced in five, we automatically assume it is a hoax? It just doesn't pass the common sense test.

In order to discount the references to christians you have to assume that thousands of people are worshiping and believing in someone who didn't exist within 50-70 years of his supposed life. We have had cults and other mass groups but never in the recorded history of the world has a group of people followed someone who didn't exist. Again, it just doesn't pass the test.