Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Religions
  5. / Religions A - Z
  6. / Christian Religions
  7. / Jesus Christ

by anon on July 14th, 2008

anon

Question

Help answer this question below.

If you couldn't use the bible, or answer something like "you just have to have faith"...could you try to prove the existence of jesus, using only secular references...?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by anon on July 17th, 2008

    anon

    i asked this because i want you to think about it...i already know the answer…

    you can’t give me proof that jesus ever existed…and you showed that to me by your answers…

    if there were proof that he lived, then my question would've been asking you to prove that he raised the dead, or something along those lines…but that’s kind of a problematic question considering that you can’t prove he was real in the first place…

    here's the "proof"...(biblical and secular sources are cited after reference, online sources are not noted by the reference, but are located at the bottom of the page…)

    there is no doubt that the christian religion is a branch of the jewish faith that broke away from judaism somewhere around the middle of what we call the 'first century'...

    the jewish people had lost their freedom to rome…in the middle of that century, jerusalem itself faced the roman army, twice, and the second time, it fell…

    the people were desperately looking for answers and leaders, as people always do in tumultuous times…the ones who stepped forth with radical teachings all stood out, like libertarians or constitutionalists of today's american political system…their hope is that as people begin to feel desperate enough to need radical change, those radical ideas can be latched onto by more and more people, until they become more of the mainstream, and the power shifts in their direction…the protestant reformation is one example of how radical religious thinking becomes accepted…the early days of the christian congregation, as they broke off from mainstream judaism of their time, is another…

    but that, in itself, does nothing to prove a man named jesus was ever born in bethlehem…you know what a vision of power does to people…in the first century, more than a few common jewish men would go on to call themselves ‘messiah’…

    biblical passages support this (matt 24:23, 24; acts 5:36, 37; 2 peter 2:1), and josephus, the noted jewish historian from the first century, mentions three of them (not counting jesus), showing the commonality of 'messiahs' in those days... (flavius josephus, antiquities of the jews 17.271-272, 17.278-284, 20.97, 98)

    as for the text that you are saying is only direct mention of jesus by a writer who wasn't a christian, it is known as "testimonium flavianum", supposedly a portion of "antiquities of the jews", a book that was completed by josephus around the year 94...

    he was a man who was born years after jesus was said to have died...he would not have been alive to witness any of the gospel testimony, firsthand…

    christians do not refute the accuracy and authenticity of josephus' writings, just as historians don’t…with the exception of “testimonium flavianum”...it is not likely from the hand of josephus...numerous scholars have published work doubting it's authenticity...for example, there are problems with the vocabulary…"the vocabulary and grammar of the passage (after the clearly Christian material is removed) cohere well with Josephus' style and language"... (john p. meier, a marginal jew, volume i)

    the first known reference to this portion of 'antiquities' was well into the fourth century...not in over 200 years did any writer, christian or otherwise, who wrote regarding 'antiquties', ever mention this one and only direct reference to jesus...

    according to the distinguished and well-known scholar and theologian of early christianity, origen, (185–254), josephus did not believe jesus was the messiah...("testimonium flavianum" says the exact opposite...)

    in case you're wondering if you can believe what he says, if you're christian, you already do...origen was the first christian known to use the same 27 books in the christian canon (new testament) that you use today...

    as a christian leader, certainly, origen would have understood this be the most important part of ‘antiquities’...in your answers, some of you even know about this passage...while he was writing about josephus and "antiquities of the jews", origen would not have ignored what would have been the most important piece of historical evidence for the existence of jesus christ...

    the only thing one can safely assume is that the "testimonium flavianum” wasn’t a part of "antiquities of the jews" when origen was alive…therefore, it was added sometime between his lifetime and circa 325, when eusebius made the first written statement about it…now there are at least three completely different versions of the "testimonium flavianum"...

    to quickly recap: josephus, by all accounts, could not possibly have ever witnessed anything in jesus life, nor was he a believer or christian...and for over two hundred years, no one wrote anything about the "testimonium flavianum" when commenting on 'antiquities', not even the church father, origen…also, today, there are, for some reason, completely different versions of this passage christians refer to as "proof...

    aside from the bible and other books and letters written by followers of christ (some of which were written by people who never met him, therefore were writing from 'faith', rather than facts), there is no other direct reference to prove a man named jesus even really lived, let alone walked on water, fed the poor, healed the sick and handicapped, raised the dead, and yes, even rose from the dead himself...most of the new testament was written the generation after the stories were to have taken place, by people who couldn't corroborate testimony...in a court of law, most of the bible couldn't be admitted as evidence...it's hearsay...

    even the gospels, only two of which were written by men known as apostles, were written decades after jesus was said to have died...there is no doubt there was a movement, just as there were other messianic movements of the day…and this one survived and grew...but that doesn't mean one of them had to be right...you could make up quite a tall tale in 30 years if you could get enough people to believe...for example, 120 people could spin a lot of messianic information to and through jewish families traveling into jerusalem for pentecost that year...could spread like wildfire, you might say, as long as there's no body (acts 1:11-2:47)...and that's easy enough if you move the body, or if jesus didn’t really die then, but simply moved away, or if there wasn't even a body in the first place because he never really lived...then the burden of proof rests on the skeptics to actually find the body…

    if you read the story, matthew gave an explanation in matthew 28:11-15, that, if given today, would be called 'conspiracy theory'…these are the words from a fringe group…the established religion and government of the day were involved in a cover-up, in matthew's opinion…even if the christians had actually stolen the body, he had to answer this way…if you look at the bigger picture, since this book wasn't written until at least a decade after the events described, and no more than 120 christians would have known whether or not this story was true, it's likely that he had to answer this way even if there were no jesus in the first place, which the vast majority of christians at the time the book matthew was written would have no way of knowing…they all accepted this story on 'faith', except for a select few who were at the core of this group…

    in order to prove that this story is true, one can’t just say, ‘there is no body, because he rose from the dead’…today, that’s a story in a book…it’s not proof, otherwise you wouldn’t need faith…but before he could rise from the dead, he had to have been alive in the first place…and you can’t prove there was even a body to begin with, can you…?

    there are rational explanations as to how christianity came about that aren't supernatural...and is no proof of a man named jesus who raised dead people in front of witnesses...which seems pretty strange that no one, not even the self-proclaimed eyewitnesses, seemed to want to write about it…some not for 3 or 4 decades...it could be that it took them that long to agree on what to say...

    when the christian congregation was young, they were persecuted, some martyred, for their faith…that all changed when the roman emperor constantine turned christianity into a state religion…christians were obviously happy with the freedom to worship peacefully…and the romans didn’t mind that there was no proof jesus ever existed, or that he possessed supernatural powers…they were used to worshipping jupiter, mars and others…

    but there are religions that can prove the existence of their original leader through secular sources…islam is one…so it’s not as though all religions are built on fantastic stories that are unverifiable…

    but christians worship a god who john said is love (1 john 4:8)…not just one who has love…he 'is' love...correct...?

    and yet the peaceful and loving buddhists will be tortured forever, something which is considered not only unloving, but inexcusable among humans, even for short periods of time, by this god who is love…simply because they don’t follow christian theology…

    untold numbers of innocent muslims and others were tortured and/or killed by order of christianity's leaders during the crusades…even christians have been tortured and killed throughout history by other christians…where is the love in burning your fellowman, and in some cases, a fellow believer, to death because he doesn’t agree with you…?

    if you want to have blind faith, there's surely no harm...unless and until you start forcing your views on others or else they suffer or die, as christian leaders have done throughout history…even george w. bush quoted from the book of isaiah when rallying the troops on the deck of the carrier uss abraham lincoln…no matter how you kill someone, it’s wrong if it’s done just to demonstrate that you think you are right…and i don’t need the ten commandments or jesus christ to know that…and i won’t support a group who preaches love and murders and tortures anyone who doesn’t agree…especially when it can’t even be proven that the superhuman/supernatural originator of the religion ever even lived…

    the view from outside the box is much easier to understand once you are no longer afraid to look for yourself...an open mind leads to all kinds of truths...with proof...

    external links…

    http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants01.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas
    http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants08.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athronges
    http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants03.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus#Jewish_Antiquities
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews
    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea
    http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/eusebius.php
    http://www.textexcavation.com/anatestimonium.html
    http://www.bible.org/search.php?cx=002862574462228651213%3Awlwzhu5hnzm&cof=FORID%3A11&q=date#941
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mythology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#cite_ref-Nigosian6_1-1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebeos
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm
    http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/crusades.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/
    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-whitney050203.asp

    Comments

    • Josephus wrote in the 90's, not when he was alive.

      Inspector Javert

      by Inspector Javert on July 27th, 2008

    • right, so his supposed mention of a man who lived before his lifetime is hearsay, not proof...

      anon

      by anon on August 2nd, 2008

    • ? No, proof of Jesus while Jesus was still alive. That's contempoary - written accounts from when he was alive. I mean... what do we have? Nothing. The earilst account of the man who supposedly did all these bloody miracles came some decades after his death. I mean really now, if a man was doing all these things that the Bible claimed to do, adn in front of great crowds, it would be written about by those who loved and hated him. But there is nothing.

      Inspector Javert

      by Inspector Javert on August 5th, 2008

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading If you couldn't use the bible, or answer something like "you just have to have faith"...could you try to prove the existence of jesus, using only secular references...?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company