are there any non-biblical related documents in history that refer to the existenece of jesus?

There was a guy named Jesus on American Idol.

My step dad is named Jesus.

Bitch.

I did a search and I didn't really find any good sources...

I remember reading somewhere that there is, but I am not really sure.

Many try to use the supposed writings of Josephus as proof of Jesus' existence, but the authenticity of those documents are sketchy at best.

Check this out: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

When you say 'non-biblical' do you mean not contained within canonical texts? There are many, many texts relating the life of Jesus that were exluded from the text. However, much of them were excluded for good reason.... I think though, that the vast number of texts that mention him and the very fact that Christianity exists is enough testament to his existence. The search for nonbiblical references of Jesus's existence is one that is inherently fueled by skepticism.

Tell me; what exactly are you looking for in seeking the non-biblical accounts? Are you trying to determine his divinity or are you merely trying to decide if he actually historically lived?

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

the very fact that Christianity exists is enough testament to his existence.

Bullshit!

From what I've heard it's pretty well agreed that he was a real person. Now whether he was Jehova is not so agreed on.

quote:Originally posted by chubbyman25:

From what I've heard it's pretty well agreed that he was a real person.

Only by Christians and those not bothering to delve into it.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

Only by Christians and those not bothering to delve into it

My friend, you (and the others here who have claimed that they don't believe Jesus existed) are an idiot. I am supremely confident in the fact that I have spent vastly more time both in defense of his existence and as a proponent to the idea that he didn't exist. I have spent a great deal of time studying theology, and I can tell you right now that, yes, merely the fact Christianity exists and the vast number of documents mentioning him are enough to attest to his existence. As another person on here said, the only contested item is his divinity (which I don't agree with, by the way, so not only Christians and people who don't care to consider find that he existed).

The fact of the matter is that Jesus existed, and all the evidence on the site mentioned here: jesusneverexisted.com is trivial and unimportant (yes, I used to be an advocate of the site). Whether there was a census, whether Nazareth existed; it's all completely irrelevant and the mention of the two were likely the interpolation of the early church.

I would recommend some reading materials for you, but I figure you're just an anghsty little shit who wouldn't bother to read anyways (this goes for everyone here who tries to claim he didn't exist). You'd be much happier believing (on baseless faith, btw) that he didn't ever exist because it makes you secure in your hatred of Christianity.

In truth though, I am not a Christian and I am completely confident in that Jesus was not divine and I have come to such knowledge by way of search and education; I suggest you pursue the same path so you stop looking like a stupid asshole.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Only by Christians and those not bothering to delve into it

My friend, you (and the others here who have claimed that they don't believe Jesus existed) are an idiot. I am supremely confident in the fact that I have spent vastly more time both in defense of his existence and as a proponent to the idea that he didn't exist. I have spent a great deal of time studying theology, and I can tell you right now that, yes, merely the fact Christianity exists and the vast number of documents mentioning him are enough to attest to his existence. As another person on here said, the only contested item is his divinity (which I don't agree with, by the way, so not only Christians and people who don't care to consider find that he existed).

The fact of the matter is that Jesus existed, and all the evidence on the site mentioned here: jesusneverexisted.com is trivial and unimportant (yes, I used to be an advocate of the site). Whether there was a census, whether Nazareth existed; it's all completely irrelevant and the mention of the two were likely the interpolation of the early church.

I would recommend some reading materials for you, but I figure you're just an anghsty little shit who wouldn't bother to read anyways (this goes for everyone here who tries to claim he didn't exist). You'd be much happier believing (on baseless faith, btw) that he didn't ever exist because it makes you secure in your hatred of Christianity.

In truth though, I am not a Christian and I am completely confident in that Jesus was not divine and I have come to such knowledge by way of search and education; I suggest you pursue the same path so you stop looking like a stupid asshole.

Show me any books about Jesus that weren't written forty years after his "life", besides the New Testament.

Calling me names and saying you're confident proves shit, as does not showing me these "books", also, simply saying it doesn't matter doesn't make it so, prove that that stuff about Nazareth etc. isn't important.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 11-12-2006).]

I don't have a lot to contribute to this subject; however, I have found several links which might be interesting reading. Click if you wish.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

Iam, can you lay off the ad hom attacks and actually get to your point?

It seems if such non-christian texts did exist they may be Roman political papers, letters, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Show me any books about Jesus that weren't written forty years after his "life", besides the New Testament.

Calling me names and saying you're confident proves shit, as does not showing me these "books", also, simply saying it doesn't matter doesn't make it so, prove that that stuff about Nazareth etc. isn't important.



I didn't mean books as in books that were written about Jesus that can be used as historical evidence for his existence, I just meant books that attempt to remove church interpolations and discover what Jesus really did/said. The Christian and (some) apocryphal texts were actually intended to be, and serve well as, historical documentation for the life of Jesus. You wouldn't deny it if they didn't call him divine. The fact of the matter is that there are more texts that claim Jesus lived than there are saying that Ceasar lived or most other historical figures.

Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were not written around the same time (as you probably know), but have you thought about what that means for the consistencies found within them? There would not have been precise coordination in their creations, and so them having agreed on many points about the life of Jesus makes just those 4 documents a reliable historical source when you eliminate the inconsistencies and apparent interpolations. The fact that there are even vastly more documents containing information about his life (many not accepted as being valid because of the late dates of creation) presents a greater case for his existence than for nearly any other historical figure that we are aware of.

The argument I make about the existence of Christianity being enough evidence for his existence is that the people who converted to Christianity in the first place (Jews) believed that their savior WOULD come to earth in human form and the people who converted were persecuted by their peers. We have a great deal of historical documentation as to the level of persecution that the early Christians (most notably probably being Polycarp who was later sainted) suffered at the hands of the Jews. Why would a people who believed that their savior would come in human form risk death in stating that he had arrived if they weren't absolutely certain that he at least walked the earth? Without knowledge that he actually existed, none of them would have risked their lives (and died proclaiming that they would not forsake their faith in him) to claim such.

As for why it is unimportant that there may not have been a universal census and that Nazareth wasn't recognized as being a city until around a century after Jesus purportedly died; I thought I made at least one reason evidently clear -- the claims of the two were very possibly interpolations of the church. The other thing is, we don't find Jesus or any of his followers ever discussing his childhood at all. Do you know why? Because his past didn't matter at all to any one among them and especially not to Jesus. I believe the only textual mentioning of his having hailed from Nazareth comes neither from him nor any of his apostles, which would mean that it would more likely be heresay or interpolation than anything else.

If you ever get past the "ZOMG he never existed and Christians are gay" stage, and decide you would like to understand the historical Jesus, I would recommend the book "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" by Geza Vermes. He established what I consider to be the most legitimate and complete method of removing interpolation.



P.S. I'm not in a structured debate wherein I need to comply to the rules of logic; I can ad hominem however much I want. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

P.S. I'm not in a structured debate wherein I need to comply to the rules of logic; I can ad hominem however much I want. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

If you want to convince anyone, then you do... you fucking idiot.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Why would a people who believed that their savior would come in human form risk death in stating that he had arrived if they weren't absolutely certain that he at least walked the earth?

That me be the lamest attempt at proving the existence of something that's ever been attempted in this forum. You do realize that people die for their beliefs all the time, whether or not there is any evidence that their beliefs are true, don't you? Not only is there not any historical evidence for Jesus' existence, the evidence that the stories attributed to Jesus are a compilation of earlier myths overwhelms your bullshit evidence.

That me be the lamest attempt at proving the existence of something that's ever been attempted in this forum. You do realize that people die for their beliefs all the time, whether or not there is any evidence that their beliefs are true, don't you? Not only is there not any historical evidence for Jesus' existence, the evidence that the stories attributed to Jesus are a compilation of earlier myths overwhelms your bullshit evidence.



No, you really don't seem to understand... You can't compare people doing for beliefs without evidence today to then. Someone dying for Christianity today without knowing of any evidence is different; the faith is a tradition. At the time it was new... The FIRST converts would've been aware of whether or not he existed. It was early enough where they could've seen him or listened to him and definitely early enough to have a second hand vocal account of someone else who did. The fact of the matter is that they were faced with convert and risk death or stay a Jew. The fact that they converted and began what is now the biggest religion in the world is enough testament to his having at least existed. If they didn't know he existed, they would've have converted to this new idea that could potentially result in their death.

Twisted: Were you trying to be hypocrically ironic? An attempt at humor? And no, I don't need to adhere to the rules of logic at all when trying to convince someone of something -- especially when all that I'm trying to convince is merely that they have formed absolutely baseless opinions. I originally posted only to answer the OP's question though, and have had to defend myself from the onslaught of anarchkids.

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 11-13-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Iam:



No, you really don't seem to understand... You can't compare people doing for beliefs without evidence today to then.

There's no difference.



quote:Originally posted by Iam:



Someone dying for Christianity today without knowing of any evidence is different; the faith is a tradition.

Irrelevant. Even today, Christians have converted to Islam and have fought with a willingness to die with the belief of a happy afterlife, with no evidence whatsoever that Muhammad was a true prophet of God.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:



At the time it was new... The FIRST converts would've been aware of whether or not he existed.

You're not making any sense. Why would the first converts need any more proof than today's converts need?

quote:Originally posted by Iam:



It was early enough where they could've seen him or listened to him and definitely early enough to have a second hand vocal account of someone else who did.

What don't you get? There is no evidence that the first converts saw him, listened to him, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:



The fact of the matter is that they were faced with convert and risk death or stay a Jew. The fact that they converted and began what is now the biggest religion in the world is enough testament to his having at least existed. If they didn't know he existed, they would've have converted to this new idea that could potentially result in their death.

Again, many converts to religions do so, even though this may result in their death and with no evidence of the religion's authenticity.

You can't compare the conversion of early Christians to the conversion to Islam today, either.

It is absolutely essential for Jesus to have lived in human form on earth for a Jew to convert to Christianity -- do you at least understand that part?

Following that (and here is where much of the difference lies in modern conversions and the early Christian conversion), the early Christian converts lived during the same time that Jesus lived or came very shortly thereafter. It's not like a modern conversion to Islam, it's more like dividing Americans into one camp of those who believe Bill Clinton never existed, and one into a camp that believes Bill Clinton was the president (and joining the camp that believes Bill Clinton was president will make you a target of violence and oppresion, btw). Anyone except newborns and toddlers has had the opportunity to see for themselves that Bill Clinton was the president.

Now if you come long after the division has been made and the only records from that period concerning the subject you have is a series of testaments from shortly after the time Bill Clinton would have lived and you also see the existence of a group saying that Bill Clinton could also breathe fire that has descended from the latter group in the first division along with numerous general accounts of violence and hatred for the early Bill Clinton was president converts.

The simple fact that some people originally risked persecution and was a part of the side that said he existed would make all of those people reliable historical accounts that he DID exist because they lived during a time when it could easily be known whether or not he lived. In fact, this is just about as reliable a source as is possible in history.

Tell me which of the following is more likely:

1) Numerous X risk persecution and death (and damnation) saying that the mangod that everyone has been awaiting for to guide them to salvation has come and that he is a real person that everyone can/could have seen/heard to be able to believe in.

or,

2) Numerous X risk persecution and death (and damnation) agreeing that the mangod that everyone has been waiting for to guide them to salvation has come and that he is (INSERT FAKE NAME BASED ON NUMEROUS PRIOR MYTHOLOGICAL ACCOUNTS HERE) that no one has been able to see/hear because he hadn't in there time, nor shortly before, really lived.

Obviously, if you're going to risk your life, and what you believe to be your eternal soul, saying someone who supposedly lived during your lifetime or very shortly before was a man who possessed something unusual, you would at be sure that he was actually a MAN.

Really dude, I (and actual reality and history, consequently) have produced significantly greater argument than you have and more evidence on a subject that would be hard to PROVE ever. It is much easier to dismiss what evidence there is and say that they don't really PROVE something than it is to try to explain why they do prove something, and I've done a greater job at my more difficult task than you have at your menial task of backing up an assertion that YOU made.

If you don't understand after this, then you're pretty much hopelessly stuck in your own childish fantasy where you are free to ignore history and believe whatever you'd like and criticize the things generally accepted (and in this case, for good reason) by society.

Remember though, that a lack of positive evidence does not constitute negative evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

It is absolutely essential for Jesus to have lived in human form on earth for a Jew to convert to Christianity -- do you at least understand that part?

No.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

If you don't understand after this, then you're pretty much hopelessly stuck in your own childish fantasy where you are free to ignore history and believe whatever you'd like and criticize the things generally accepted (and in this case, for good reason) by society.

Remember though, that a lack of positive evidence does not constitute negative evidence.

You're talking out of your ass. There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Saying that I am ignoring history is a baseless claim. You haven't shown any cites for historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and just keep repeating that the earliest converts must have had proof, which is nonsense.