Writings During The Life of Jesus Prove His Existence?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by BernardRichards, Jun 2, 2008.

  1. What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

    If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

    So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

    Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

    Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

    Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

    Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

    If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

    Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

    To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.
    http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
     
  2. It is marvelous that this is now the way we judge historical characters.

    Perhaps you would care to list the many undeniable extra-Koranic sources that show that Muhammad existed, written during his life. After all, since he was born > 600 years later, there must be hundreds...

    how about doing this for Siddhârtha Gautama? the founder of Buddhism?

    And why do you expect extrabiblical sources from people who lived before his time to mention him? That would certainly be a wonder

    In other words, using modern logic and stating what must happen in the past for someone to exist or have impact is a lesson in futility.

    Christ was documented through the New Testament, as well as apocryphal writings. Remember, the Gospel of Thomas, et al? Muhammad was documented through the Koran. Siddhârtha was documented through the Buddhist texts. Excising the words of those closest to the source and purging them from history is a strange practice.
     
  3. Every religion is bs...

    More importantly, religion just divides people and causes conflict...
     
  4. Well, it's easy to accept that Jesus probably is a historical person. But we also know that there were tons of "messiahses" at the time - www.livius.org and that the jewish tribes were fighting within themselves for political prominence by promoting their own candidate.

    But just like today we have stupid morons following what they see as their "profet" - like the FLDS and their symbol at that Texas ranch - or the scientologists ... there will always be people who will accept the easy cop-out way of looking at things through religion other than taking their time to study science and what we actually "know" about the universe. That way they can claim "the whole truth" - while they just simplify their lives with stupid bullshit.

    Religion is just a psychological inclination for humans because of our larger brain and more complex interaction with the world - actually understanding and analyzing our environment. You religious boneheads just bring it down to a level that you can cope with. Stop trying to be a missionary between hard-hitting traders - you will not find your victims so easily here - but you could try the losers subforums for some devastated souls - if that's what you like to prey/pray upon. The will no doubt bend over more easily for you ...
    :p
     
  5. This is not my purpose here. I teach for my own salvation only. That is the way it has always been and ought to be. No other way works. It is about accepting what I've been given to percieve. It is shared in print. It need not be. Sharing is for me to understand that everything in the Kingdom is shared. The Kingdom is mine because I am willing to share it completely. Any interest is cooincidental. Not all are ready for it any time soon. Those who are are known to the Holy Spirit who knows all. And they will connect with this when they are ready. Because they are one with me, I still teach only for myself. Meanwhile, this is for the end of the concept of "Jesus", that is, individuality, personhood, and/or special status. When Jesus *dies*...when stories have absolutely no value...when the world is utterly disbelieved, I will be done here. When the world is utterly disbelieved by all, it will be gone. It never was. Follow me or not. Sooner or later. I merely leave bread crumbs behind on the path I take on my way out. The last one out turn on the lights.

    Peace.



    Jesus
     
  6. You guys should be paying sponsorship for spewing all that propaganda here on Elitetrader - it is sort of commercial in nature. Churches and other religious leaders/places have always taken to gold and riches to show their "splendor".

    I understand where your standpoint looking for "personal salvation" is, although it's easy for me to brush off any of your attempts. I did not take the easy route for getting my understanding, and I follow no one for guidance - I "make my own path" so to speak. Most people are not capable of fending for themselves, especially when it comes to seeing the larger picture in life - and I'll easily admit that it takes a lot of time and thought to get the confidence to be able to defend and stand up for oneself against any religious group ... it takes a lot of study to make "sense of it all" - but we all seek some kind of enlightenment.

    If you go beyond the literal teachings of the bible/tora/q'uran of the abrahamic religions - then you can start seeing the variations of theisms and the richer world of theology. Then it's much easier to discuss the differences in philosophy - instead of unintelligently quoting the respective religious scriptures. But alas - so few religious crackheads are able to participate in a purely philosophical discussion - because they are absolutely oblivious to the philosophical system that their religion entails. They only know what has been repeated from the scriptures, and can't think for themselves...

    ... and THAT is my great contempt for religious working ants who are a dime a dozen. They can't start to think for themselves without quoting something that has been pre-processed for them. "Finding the answer" ... haha.

    I hold political pundits and "philosophers" to the same contempt when they are unable to think for themselves - but they "need to confer in the books" to see what their opinion is. They are no more than pre-fabricated opinions that they memorize - but never understand or are capable of deducing. Maybe I demand a lot from someone wanting to defend a philosophical standpoint - but why shouldn't I ...

    I treat objectivists/marxists/existensialists etc, religious people and politicians just the same way when they can't grasp what they are selling ... The easiest way is by starting to look at epistemology - because it's really hard and also very central to what philosophy is about.

    Well, just a small rant ... won't matter anything anyway. I think that people denying a historical Jesus-person are pretty ignorant - just as the ones claiming him to be anything special other than the leader of a small group at his time - who was made into something different by political events and principles during history and by his followers. The altruistic treatment of the sick was of course what "made christianity work" in Europe, but it's not like that matters more than being kind to each other.

    The notion of a god is even more far fetched - that's not even a historical person - hence "the leap of faith".
    €.02
     
  7. Bernard Rich;

    a[Thanks, I found GOOG info rather quickly, search '' Josephus'' & Jesus info;
    however i also can find a policeman rather easily. Crooks can't seem to find a policeman.

    b]4,000 year old trends like the Old & New Testament are important.Many prophesys [infallible, innerant]concern his 1st .2nd coming....... of Jesus, abound.

    c]Daystar,TBN, Sky Angel,LBN,KTV, [TV networks]are covering the earth,;
    NYT & Washingyon Post doesnt like that.

    GS]Goldman tried to buy TBN[Trinity Broadcasting Network], starting offer a billion or more, its not for sale.So if you or me dont watch TBN, it really does not matter, in big picture.

    murray TT:cool:
     
  8. jem

    jem

    Yes all you religious people should allow a kook to post illogical but specious stuff from another kooks website and just let it sit there unchallenged.

    There is a serious campaign to make believers seem uniformed or uneducated. You can see that campaign has had a great impact. Just here in this thread - we see people so strongly convinced there is no creator that one says it is a myth like story and another that a belief is just a pyschological need.

    I just like to point out that these implications of these statements are that somehow people know the universe did not have a creator?

    My question is what is up with that? Is that a scientific belief?
     

  9. "Myth" is the term used by scientists to trivialize the beliefs of others. Hypotheses is the term uesd by scientists to make their beliefs seem more authentic and important. Here are a few:

    There must be intelligent life on other planets. We have never detected any, but just look at all those planets.

    Although the universe seems to have many dozens of constants that have an anooying appearance of being tuned for life, the best explanation seems to be we just happen to live in a universe that is "just right." There are probably zillions of other universes with people just like us. Each universe bubble probably has its own laws of physics, even though we taught for ages that the laws are immutable. We call it a "multiverse." And we have never seen one and probably never will, trust us they are probably there. Multiverse has more syllables than God, so it is a more powerful explanation.

    We know more than you do. We is smart. Just ignore the fact that during the last 30 years, we came to realize that 96% of the universe was sitting there, unknown to us clever scientists. We call this Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They are relatives who went over to the Dark Side of the Force. Master Yoda couldn't save them. Some scientists even doubt this explanation. We still don't know what it is made of, but since we call this a theory or hypothesis, just take our word for it. Ignore the fact we were unaware of 96% of the universe for so many years.

    Everything is made of superstrings. It comes in spray cans and is used at parties.

    Religious people are dangerous. Scientists are benevolent. Unless of course, you are going to be unfair and hold things like developing atomic weapons, biologic/chemical/radiological weapons against us. OR making better technology to kill others. Or things like dissecting people alive by the tens of thousands during WW2 to see how those subhumans (those not Japanese or German) tick.


    Pretty much everything we scientists learn, has been and will have to be rewritten, since research keeps punching holes in our paradigms. That is called "learning." Ignore the fact that we may know less than 1% of what there is to be known.

    Ah, here is another one. We thought the Milky Way had 4 arms. Now we think it only has 2:

    http://www.livescience.com/space/080603-aas-spiral-arms.html

     
  10. Turok

    Turok

    Man, I disappoints me so that we keep learning things.

    In fact, I'm so disgruntled with this increase in knowledge that I'm going to do the clear and right thing and accept that there is a single book, written by ... (well, we're not really sure much about it, but it was written at least) that explains everything.

    Again, this book is certainly the best and only real choice since the alternative is to keep learning.

    JB
     
    #10     Jun 3, 2008