Proving Jesus existed without the bible...

[The King]

Truths are things that are readily proven. Beliefs, such as your spirituality, cannot be proven so to state that it is a truth is just more of your dogmatic ideals. You are obviously an intelligent person, can you not debate or discuss without condescension?

So, is your cute pic not condescending?

[racrguy]

Truths are things that are readily proven. Beliefs, such as your spirituality, cannot be proven so to state that it is a truth is just more of your dogmatic ideals. You are obviously an intelligent person, can you not debate or discuss without condescension?

I've not seen any reason to believe this true.

[The King]

Fact, opinion, or heresay (sic)?

[davbrucas]

So, is your cute pic not condescending?

Wasnt meant to be...just sums up my thoughts on religion.

[YALE]

Defense of the Truth is indeed a very powerful thing, doctor.

Now, go back to posting cute pics and spare us the online psychoanalysis. Thank you.

If your position is so true, why does it require such a defensive effort on your part?

[The King]

Effort? What effort?

[racrguy]

If your position is so true, why does it require such a defensive effort on your part?

He's right, Yale. It's very easy to answer questions with questions and never ACTUALLY answer anything.

[The King]

To adapt the following qoute to one of the board's more comical posters:

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

to:

It is better to not conduct google searches when one knows nothing about the topic at hand and be thought a fool, than to mindlessly copy and paste from google searches ad nauseum and remove all doubt.

[jdgregory84]

To adapt the following qoute to one of the board's more comical posters:

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

to:

It is better to not conduct google searches when one knows nothing about the topic at hand and be thought a fool, than to mindlessly copy and paste from google searches ad nauseum and remove all doubt.

A Google search is more accurate than searching your soul.

[Maddhattter]

[BrianC]

Hoax?

(I see no one's posted here for a few weeks--wow, this place is dead!)

So the two main theories are as follows:

1. Jesus really lived, and a few thousand people followed him around in a day when most people didn't know how to read or write (and even if they did, they're not historians so their writings wouldn't be around today). He didn't become very well known until the last year of his ministry, and the Pharisees really didn't want to write about him, because they wanted to snuff him out for good. Once he dies and starts a huge revolution, then people start writing about him, some of whom actually witnessed him themselves. These people called themselves "Disciples" or "Disciples of the Way," but everyone else called them "Christians" as a derogatory term. These Disciples had to give up their normal lives in order to flee Jerusalem and go teach all around the Pagan world about Jesus at risk of being killed. They didn't make any money off of him except to get by, and the rest went to help the home churches they started and persecuted Disciples. Then they were all killed as a result of their beliefs in the end.

2. Jesus never really existed, and the "Christians" cooked up the story for their own benefit. And yet, there was no benefit. They had to leave their own country to go elsewhere and teach a supposedly fake message at the risk of being crucified, mobbed, stoned, or imprisoned. And in teaching this false message, which gained them no benefits, they started a revolution that changed the entire world and even caused the calendar to change and be based off of this fake man Jesus' birth. Jesus became a big deal, so people started writing about him, but without firsthand experience with him. Then the disciples all died for this belief, taking this false information to the grave with them.

So, which sounds more likely to you?

I find the first theory very plausible and it makes sense with human nature. I find the second theory to make absolutely no sense. I don't understand how a non-existent man could impact more change in the world than any other figure in history.

And why would people do something like this for no self-gain if they're liars? The point of lying is to protect oneself or gain something. They knew from the beginning this would get them killed and force them to move from their home country. They knew there were no benefits to making up this lie. Nothing whatsoever, except that some people might worship them. However, they all try to avert worship away from them and toward Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to me with typical human nature, and I'm pretty good with psychology. I helped people who have Multiple Personality Disorder for 5 years. None of this theory makes sense. But that's just my take on it. I could be wrong.

Each person is entitled to their own beliefs. If I force my beliefs on someone else and I'm wrong, how messed up is that? How do I know I'm right? Everything's so subjective to what I know and how my subconscious issues are driving my emotions and my beliefs (unbeknownst to me). It's just unloving for me to force my beliefs on others. If I share them when asked about them, that's considerate. But if I'm not asked about them and I share them, the person probably doesn't care to know about them and I'm likely alienating them in some way.

Here's an article about the best non-Christian historical writings about Jesus. One must make up their own mind from what is presented here (and elsewhere). It's not mine, or anyone's, place to tell someone else how they should make up their mind. And it doesn't work anyway, so what's the point?

Historical Non-Christian Accounts of Jesus

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

[BrianC]

LOL That's awesome.

[Maddhattter]

So the two main theories are as follows:

1. Jesus really lived, and a few thousand people followed him around in a day when most people didn't know how to read or write (and even if they did, they're not historians so their writings wouldn't be around today). He didn't become very well known until the last year of his ministry, and the Pharisees really didn't want to write about him, because they wanted to snuff him out for good. Once he dies and starts a huge revolution, then people start writing about him, some of whom actually witnessed him themselves. These people called themselves "Disciples" or "Disciples of the Way," but everyone else called them "Christians" as a derogatory term. These Disciples had to give up their normal lives in order to flee Jerusalem and go teach all around the Pagan world about Jesus at risk of being killed. They didn't make any money off of him except to get by, and the rest went to help the home churches they started and persecuted Disciples. Then they were all killed as a result of their beliefs in the end.

2. Jesus never really existed, and the "Christians" cooked up the story for their own benefit. And yet, there was no benefit. They had to leave their own country to go elsewhere and teach a supposedly fake message at the risk of being crucified, mobbed, stoned, or imprisoned. And in teaching this false message, which gained them no benefits, they started a revolution that changed the entire world and even caused the calendar to change and be based off of this fake man Jesus' birth. Jesus became a big deal, so people started writing about him, but without firsthand experience with him. Then the disciples all died for this belief, taking this false information to the grave with them.

So, which sounds more likely to you?

I’d argue that these aren’t the two hypotheses. You left out in the first one that Jesus was a god/man hybrid and walked around performing magic, up to and including necromancy and the second one doesn’t actually claim that the disciples gained any benefit from the beliefs. That’s ignoring little things like it wasn’t the message of Christ that changed the world; it was the early church’s violence-prone militant actions that forced their beliefs on others at the point of a sword.

Regardless, we can prove at least one of these things has happened. L. Ron Hubbard did exactly what the #2 “theory” states. Up to, and including, the claim of persecution, both violent and non-violent. As we cannot prove that the #1 theory has ever occurred, it would be the more likely of the two, by default.

I find the first theory very plausible and it makes sense with human nature. I find the second theory to make absolutely no sense.

I don't understand how a non-existent man could impact more change in the world than any other figure in history.[/Quote]

Of course you do. You already believe the first occurred.

I don't understand how a non-existent man could impact more change in the world than any other figure in history.

Again, by all the evidence, it wasn’t a man (real or imaginary) that changed the world, it was the church, who professed to spread his non-violent message via violence, that impacted change.

And why would people do something like this for no self-gain if they're liars? The point of lying is to protect oneself or gain something. They knew from the beginning this would get them killed and force them to move from their home country. They knew there were no benefits to making up this lie. Nothing whatsoever, except that some people might worship them. However, they all try to avert worship away from them and toward Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to me with typical human nature

We don’t know that those who originally spread that information were under threat of being killed or exiled.

None of this theory makes sense. But that's just my take on it. I could be wrong.

Not true. There are preachers/pastors/rabbi/etc that continue to do their jobs and bring followers into the fold of their respective religion, but do not believe in the tenants of those religions anymore. The reason they keep doing it? A job that brings a steady income, usually. I’m sure that having a bunch of people who’ll listen to you and take what you say as truth doesn’t hurt either. I’ll, again, reference scientology in this regard.

Each person is entitled to their own beliefs. If I force my beliefs on someone else and I'm wrong, how messed up is that?[/Quote]

All current religions are mutually exclusive. So, only one can be right but all could be wrong. That means that the vast majority of all people are pushing their wrong beliefs.

How do I know I'm right?

Testable, demonstrable, reproducible evidence.

Everything's so subjective to what I know and how my subconscious issues are driving my emotions and my beliefs (unbeknownst to me).

Your beliefs are subjective, sure. Barring hard solipsism, reality is not.

It's just unloving for me to force my beliefs on others.

Can you expand on this thought? If I believed that holding someone under the water is bad, should that not be forced on others for their own safety?

If I share them when asked about them, that's considerate. But if I'm not asked about them and I share them, the person probably doesn't care to know about them and I'm likely alienating them in some way.

In the context of religious beliefs, I’ll agree with the above statements. I’m not sure how they’re relevant to the thread, though.

Here's an article about the best non-Christian historical writings about Jesus. One must make up their own mind from what is presented here (and elsewhere). It's not mine, or anyone's, place to tell someone else how they should make up their mind. And it doesn't work anyway, so what's the point?

It does work. All the time, in fact. People are evangelizing their particular beliefs, religious and otherwise, and people are changing their own beliefs based on that evangelizing all the time. Otherwise, people would almost never change their religious views.

Historical Non-Christian Accounts of Jesus
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...an_Sources.htm

None of these are actual historical accounts of Jesus. All of them are non-contemporary references and are almost exclusively talking about what christians at the time believed. That’s assuming that they are all written by their reported author, as at least one of them is of questionable authorship.

Claiming these references as accounts of Jesus would be like claiming that I’m giving an historical account of Xenu by stating that scientologists believe that he was an alien overlord and attempt to fight his influence on people.

[BrianC]

I’d argue that these aren’t the two hypotheses. That’s ignoring little things like it wasn’t the message of Christ that changed the world; it was the early church’s violence-prone militant actions that forced their beliefs on others at the point of a sword.

LOL I'd forgotten about the god/man hybrid theory. I also wanted to keep it simple.

Regarding the early church's violence, I agree with you if we're talking 500 AD up through the 1700s. But that's Catholicism, which is a mix of Paganism with Christianity, and a whole lot of government control. That's why we have an eternal hell doctrine. There's record of Constantine burning all of the opposing viewpoints at some point in the Dark Ages.

Regardless, we can prove at least one of these things has happened. L. Ron Hubbard did exactly what the #2 “theory” states. Up to, and including, the claim of persecution, both violent and non-violent.

I'd argue that one cannot compare what L. Ron Hubbard did with the account of Jesus due to a major issue. Jesus performed miracles and caused a whole lot of uproar in Israel. And the Jews themselves say He did miracles back in those times, and they recorded the many miraculous signs seen in the sky and other really bizarre happenings at that time that are unexplainable. They say that for a month, I think, no one could keep a candle lit in their homes. lol In other words, the "light of life & truth" has gone out in Israel and transferred to the rest of the world. This is against their religion, but they still say it happened. So there are multiple witnesses, some of which hated Jesus, that confirm these crazy events. L. Ron Hubbard is the only one who claims what he claims, and I don't know if he even claimed he saw this stuff. No one else can confirm what he came up with, and no one on a large scale believes it. Most think he lied. In Jesus' time, He had thousands of followers, and after He died, His followers were persecuted heavily for the next three hundred years. They were non-violent. All of the times of greatest persecution, the religion grew even more (which is counterintuitive) because the people were so loving when persecuted. When the church was killing its own people back in the 1600s, many of them would be burning at the stake with no pain. Instead, they would just be speaking love to those persecuting them. Anyway, we have a lot of eyewitness account, but L. Ron Hubbard doesn't. L. Ron Hubbard didn't create a non-existent guy who supposedly lived in the 50's. If no one had seen him, they'd all call BS, especially nowadays with all the ways we have to confirm this stuff. There's quite a difference between the two accounts. But heck, you could still be right.

Of course you do. You already believe the first occurred.

In your opinion. If you're incorrect, then I'm not believing in a non-existent man. Besides, I have other things that prove it for me, and no matter how hard I try, I can't disprove those things. But that's not a discussion I care to have in this forum.

Again, by all the evidence, it wasn't a man (real or imaginary) that changed the world, it was the church, who professed to spread his non-violent message via violence, that impacted change.

Again, I'd point out, it was the violent Pagan emperor with a god complex who "became" Christian and then other emperors who carried out the violent activities who did that. That's when the people followed suit (who were mostly Pagans converted to Christianity). Before that, there wasn't much violence at all. I can't attribute any major, or even minor (though I'm sure there must have been a little), violence to the church of the first 300-400 years of Christianity.

We don’t know that those who originally spread that information were under threat of being killed or exiled.

Maybe. Who knows. But there seem to be a lot of writings that aren't in the Bible that confirm the actions of those same people who wrote those books. I doubt these people are so powerful they can pull off such a lofty accomplishment. And for what purpose? L. Ron Hubbard had a purpose--to make a lot of money off suckers. The early Church is mostly comprised of a lot of people who are in poverty. And the people who aren't in poverty are encouraged, if they feel like it, to help out those in poverty by sharing their wealth. But the disciples weren't making hardly any money off these people. Paul gave most of his money to help others, and when he'd run out, he'd start making tents and selling them.

Not true. There are preachers/pastors/rabbi/etc that continue to do their jobs and bring followers into the fold of their respective religion, but do not believe in the tenants of those religions anymore. The reason they keep doing it? A job that brings a steady income, usually. I’m sure that having a bunch of people who’ll listen to you and take what you say as truth doesn't hurt either. I’ll, again, reference scientology in this regard.

I agree with you post 312 AD. However, we're talking about the early church--the origin of Christianity. What idiot creates a religion that will most assuredly get him and his followers killed? lol None of the early church had anything to gain from Christianity. It was only once the government took over in the 4th-5th centuries and made everything very Pagan that people started making money. Christians had no temples up to that time. No priests. They met in homes and in Jewish synagogues. Constantine outlawed all of that--the peaceful, non-profitable Jewish practices (he hated Jews) and implemented the Pagan practices of temples and priests and liturgy, etc. Christianity today is nothing like it was in First Century. If there's no church, there's no need to sucker people into giving a bunch of money by propagating a tithe that Paul never asked for. Jesus only mentioned tithing food once (not tithing money, which is not taught in the Law). They had no rules (except for the few home churches who wanted some of the Law), every Friday night was more like a party, not a church service. People would play music, sing, dance and have orderves in a home's courtyard. Then they'd have a big meal. Then they'd all talk about what God had taught them and help each other. Very down-to-earth and friendly. They didn't force their religion on anyone. Instead, they went out and helped the poor, widowed, homeless, and orphans. And when those people would ask why they're helping, they'd say their God instructed them to do so and it brings them great joy to do it. They would share their wealth (if they had any) with these people to bring the poor up to a reasonable standard of living. Things are very different now. Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola tracks all of these changes in the church historically. The original "church" was just a way of living based off love.

All current religions are mutually exclusive. So, only one can be right but all could be wrong. That means that the vast majority of all people are pushing their wrong beliefs.

I believe every single religion on the planet is pushing incorrect beliefs in one way or another. I won't associate myself with any particular religion anymore. I don't like religion. There was no religion in the Garden. Just relationship and freedom (only one rule--don't eat of that tree or things will suck for you LOL). I think Jesus was trying to restore that by fighting against religion. Jesus didn't create a religion--His followers eventually did, though. I think He tried to bring in a way of life that entails freedom and love and no judgment and no rules. That's why Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapters 6 and 10, says "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial." In other words, there are no rules, so learn what's beneficial for you and others, and what's not beneficial, and use that as your teacher.

[BrianC]

Testable, demonstrable, reproducible evidence.

Science has shown us that this is often unreliable. LOL Scientists constantly have to go back and rework their theories, because they frequently find out they've misinterpreted something in the universe or on the earth incorrectly despite their repeated testing that appeared to prove a conclusion. When they get new information, it can completely change conclusions. Happens all the time. My wife's a brain researcher with a PhD in behavioral and brain sciences. In one of her courses, the professor would tell the class every day, "Forget what you learned yesterday about the brain. It's all changed today." That's a good lesson to learn to keep people humble and open minded so they understand they can almost always be wrong about something.

Your beliefs are subjective, sure. Barring hard solipsism, reality is not.

Yes, but defining reality is quite a daunting task. 20 years ago, we were certain that carbon dating, and all other dating methods, were accurate, because we were certain the half-life of an element was consistent. And yet within the past 10 years, we've proven that half-lives can be greatly corrupted/reduced by outside forces, especially water, which would make things appear way older than they are. And there are a couple more factors to dating that they found aren't consistent either.

Can you expand on this thought? If I believed that holding someone under the water is bad, should that not be forced on others for their own safety?

There's a difference between governmental laws and beliefs. The government can make a law that if you murder someone, there's a penalty for it, because it's not productive for society and harms others. Doesn't matter what my belief system says. The government is designed for safety and ordering society. The belief system is designed to help guide people through life so they can grow and mature. While they may seem closely related, and they are in some ways, they're two different things. I would never tell someone that drowning someone else is bad and against my beliefs. I would say that it's dysfunctional and unloving, and they need to use their best judgment as to whether they should do it to someone else.

It does work. All the time, in fact. People are evangelizing their particular beliefs, religious and otherwise, and people are changing their own beliefs based on that evangelizing all the time. Otherwise, people would almost never change their religious views.

Sorry, I should've clarified. If I try to convert someone, they will not do it unless they want to and they're interested. But if someone is on the edge about their beliefs or not strongly convicted, and if someone can shame that person to make them feel bad and convince them they're awful and they need that religion, then they'll buy into it to make their self feel better. But that's fear based, usually, and it only works on someone if they're open to it in some way. I can guarantee, though, that no one who doesn't want to change their beliefs will change their beliefs till an event changes them and causes them to be open to new beliefs. If I change my beliefs, it's because something's happened that causes me to want to change them--plain and simple. Forcing beliefs doesn't work. Sharing them can work if someone's open to hearing.

None of these are actual historical accounts of Jesus. All of them are non-contemporary references and are almost exclusively talking about what christians at the time believed. That’s assuming that they are all written by their reported author, as at least one of them is of questionable authorship.

Claiming these references as accounts of Jesus would be like claiming that I’m giving an historical account of Xenu by stating that scientologists believe that he was an alien overlord and attempt to fight his influence on people.

All of them are written accounts by non-Christians, if I remember correctly, and one of them is by a historian who's talking about Caesar's comment and actions. But, like you said, none of them are from Jesus' time and none are firsthand accounts. I wasn't saying these are proofs, necessarily. I'm just saying that these are supposedly some of the best comments people use to prove His existence.

I have no desire to convince you or anyone else of what I believe in regard to this. I love sharing facts and discussing things, though, so people have more information. But debates don't sit well with me--lots of pride involved in them rather than friendly discussion. I appreciate that you don't seem to be debating me. You sound like you're just sharing your opinion. Thanks!