Solid Non-Biblical Proof That Jesus Existed

by White Dove 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Awakened07

  That is as solid an evidence as you are going to get with any ancient figure, and the mention of lack of reference in other writings of the period is an argument from silence. This is a bad place to start building a case against the existence of a figure that outside his small group of followers was an insignificant figure; a no-name agitator that was unceremoniously executed.

  In fairness, 'any ancient figure' didn't actually heal the sick, actually raise the dead and actually feed thousands of people with a basket of food, in addition to claiming to be God ('s son), actually having supernatural phenomenons happen at his death, actually being resurrected etc. When I say 'actually', I mean this is not supposed to be some David Copperfield of the first century, but the actual, real deal. So, in light of that, it is a little strange that there are not more extra-biblical writings about him, IMO.

  If there were rock solid evidence of Jesus' existence, we wouldn't need to believe.

  In fairness (again), if there was rock solid evidence of Jesus' existence, people would still have had to choose to believe if the miracles were real and not tricks, and they would still have to choose to believe he was the Messiah. So faith would still be a big part of it, but evidence would have borrowed more credibility to the story. So evidence would not be a bad thing for Christians.

  Imo, the lack of evidence doesn't discredit this christian message.

  It doesn't discredit many of Jesus' teachings, but if he didn't actually exist, or existed but was just a man, that would put a real dampener on the whole 'salvation through him' thing(!). But - lack of evidence, and rock solid evidence, both require faith in what he was said to be.

  But if the entire Bible through-and-through was backed up with solid, physical evidence, and miracles were a little more prevalent in our day, then it would have been easier for skeptics to not be so... skeptical.

  Personally I am currently undecided as to what I believe about the historical Jesus. I am - for lack of a better word (or maybe it is the best word) - agnostic about it.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Some people would deny Jesus if he sat down in their living rooms.
  
  I believe in Jesus, I believe he was real, I believe in the bible, I have faith. It would be easier if there were more actual evidence, but life itself has many unanswered questions.
• 

  White Dove

  Shawn and Awakened,

  I totally agree. There are just way too many fantastical things attributed to Biblical Jesus to have been missed by most ancient historians and log keepers of the day.

  None of those fantastical things ever happened in our lifetimes. How could a loving god kill us for not believing in him/her/it because of weak and or absent evidence.

  We are asked to sacrifice sooooooo much for this apparently mythical creature (oops! It wasn't created!) yet this THING/Jesus/God/Allah hides so well from being evidenced.
• 

  White Dove

  JG,

  "Life has many unanswered questions."

  That is what makes life interesting. I love it!

  I'm not sure I would equate life's unanswered questions with the fact of Jesus' existence.

  Life has many unanswered questions, therefore Jesus being real requires no solid evidence.

  Jesus is real because I don't understand everything.

  Too much has been attributed to him for me to just take at face value.

  The toothfarrie exists, you know. Ra does too. Isis is real.

  If Jesus/God was not threatening my life and attempting to force me to believe unto Him under pains of torture and death, I wouldn't consider this topic of any importance, but He is threatening the whole planet.

  You'd think there would be more for us to build our faith on.

  Don't get me wrong. I totally respect Christians' right to believe in whatever they want, it's just that this is a life or death dilemma that seems to lack credibility in my eyes.

  I really don't perceive a threat whatsoever from anyone or thing that has no prior pattern of threat or cannot be proven or theorized to be a future threat.

  So, there is not enough proof for me of the Biblical Jesus (the man + miracles) for me to alter my life and sacrifice it.

  That is just too much to ask.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  then that is your choice.
• 

  hillary_step

  Burn,

  The majority and mainstream of opinion of historians and biblical scholars is that Jesus the man existed.

  This thread is not about whether Jesus THE MAN existed. For example, I have already noted, because evidence is plentiful, that Palestine was FILLED with multiple 'Jesus the Man' during the C1st. Numerous loonies claiming to be the Messiah were written about, and documented by secular sources.

  What this thread is about Burn is whether the BIBLICAL Jesus existed.....you know, this one:

  No, you find it in the Bible, where it is purported that a man allegedly defied gravity by walking on water, allegedly, on more than one occasion ressurected the dead in front of a huge funeral party, allegedly healed the blind, lame and deaf throughout the whole of Palestine, allegedly fed thousands of people by miraculously multiplying some bread and fish that he had, allegedly turned water into wine in front of dozens of wedding guests, allegedly ascended into heaven with numerous people present, whose death allegedly caused earthquakes and an eclipse. etc. etc.

  None of the above appeared in any of the Roman Annals either. The point is though, that they should have as they were the kind of events that would have been discussed throughout the land.

  I do not apologize for repeating my own post. If posts were carefully read, so much valuable time would be saved.

  The majority and mainstream of opinion of historians and biblical scholars is that Jesus the man existed.

  I have read few historians who accept that a Biblical Jesus existed, the 'majority' believe the Biblical Jesus to be a myth though accept that the myth was based on a man who did exist, a sort of David Koresh without the fire. ;). It is a given that the 'majority' of Biblical Scholars who might be believers accept in FAITH that the Biblical Jesus existed, though even in this group many exist who deny the miracles.

  The reality is Burn, accept it or not, that the secular evidence for the existence of the Biblical Jesus is less than minimal, more than tenous, and unreliable in the extreme.

  If this evidence was a birdge, would you drive across it?

  HS
• 

  snowbird

  If Jesus/God was not threatening my life and attempting to force me to believe unto Him under pains of torture and death, I wouldn't consider this topic of any importance, but He is threatening the whole planet.

  How is Jesus/God threatening anyone, White Dove?

  He is returning to rule this planet in love and compassion; isn't that a desirable thing?

  The WT and other religions have so conditioned us to be fearful that it is almost impossible for the true Message to penetrate our hearts.

  That Message is not about force, threats, torture, or death. It's about love, kindness, compassion, humility, and justice.

  May we all live to see that Day!

  Sylvia
• 

  hillary_step

  Snowbird,

  He is returning to rule this planet in love and compassion; isn't that a desirable thing?

  "...broad and spacious is the road leading to destruction...."

  HS
• 

  White Dove

  My heart is a logical one given to me by who knows whom.

  I shouldn't be destroyed just because I follow that heart.

  It's really not a choice I'm making.

  I feel compelled to doubt without evidence.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  What this thread is about Burn is whether the BIBLICAL Jesus existed.....you know, this one:

  No, HS. Read the original post that started the thread:

  I have not heard of one single (non-shroud of Turin) piece of evidence that Jesus ever walked the earth.

  The reality is Burn, accept it or not, that the secular evidence for the existence of the Biblical Jesus is less than minimal, more than tenous, and unreliable in the extreme

  Apparently, you do not read my posts very well, as you seem to argue against points I have not made. If my posts were carefully read by yourself, so much valuable time would be saved. The assertion in the original post was:

  I have not heard of one single (non-shroud of Turin) piece of evidence that Jesus ever walked the earth.

  Other than arguments from silence, there is no good evidence that Jesus did not walk the earth, as I and others have demonstrated earlier. The alternative is that a span of two or three decades saw the development a coherent set of doctrines and a body of believers about a person that never existed along with a large number of martyrs among which were those that claimed either first-person ocular evidence or close association to those that did. Apparently some put their money where their mouth was in the first century. The alternative is some of these speculative hypotheses that get floated about attempting to erect a different first cause for the Christian religion. Truly, this is a conspiracy theory worthy of gracing the pages of JWD along with JCanon dumpster rantings, 9-11 "troofs" and reptilian bloodlines. The more parsimonious explanation is that there was a Jesus that existed and acted and taught in a manner that approximates what the gospels attribute to his life and ministry.

  No, you find it in the Bible, where it is purported that a man allegedly defied gravity by walking on water, allegedly, on more than one occasion ressurected the dead in front of a huge funeral party, allegedly healed the blind, lame and deaf throughout the whole of Palestine, allegedly fed thousands of people by miraculously multiplying some bread and fish that he had, allegedly turned water into wine in front of dozens of wedding guests, allegedly ascended into heaven with numerous people present, whose death allegedly caused earthquakes and an eclipse. etc. etc.

  None of the above appeared in any of the Roman Annals either. The point is though, that they should have as they were the kind of events that would have been discussed throughout the land.

  How many surviving documents have been transmitted the 1st century? Precious few. We do not have a daily news archive from the era. What we know of a great many historical figures from antiquity would only fill a single page and what has been transmitted to us regarding them contains a great deal of the supernatural and miraculous. Do we jettison these sources? The simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible for us to know a great deal about ancient people, we do not have the data, and that the argument from silence is a poor one in this case.

  BTS