Any non-biblical references to Christ?

It wouldn't matter if Jesus was a myth or not. The Tao Te Ching was supposedly written by Lao Tzu, who is thought to be an amalgamation of several people, and might not have existed at all. He could be a plot device like the idea of a personified God, just to spice up a collection of folk wisdom.
 
Dinosaur,

There are no credible historical references to Jesus. The nearest is a single paragraph claimed to have been written by Josephus, but all indepndent analysis has demontrated this was fraudulently added to his texts.

For a more detailed analysis on alledged historical claims to Jesus read -

The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.
The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S.

Jesus it appears was a conceptual character who it was hoped would bring freedom and liberation to the Jews. He never came and he never existed of course, but in the chaotic warring and political times of 2000 years ago, the idea turned into myth and the mythmakers and storytellers (primary entertainmnet in those times) churned out their fiction. Over the years people began to think the myths were true and that leaves us with the mess we have today where billions have confused a myth with reality.
 
Angeleic B,

Surely you should know by now that I am not the kind of person to wave about this and that like you guys do.

If I say it is then it is - I prefer that you find it for yourself and only until i am sure that will not then I will reveal a clue.
I am talking about contemporaries of josephus - i believe there were another two or three who mentioned The Christ.
Click to expand...
You need to put up or shut up. If you can't then your claims and words are worthless.
 
it does matter if Jesus was fictional or not, to people whose belief hinges on the idea that he was real. but for your average person, no, it doesn't especially matter.
 
There are a few options about Jesus I can think of:

1. A virgin mother gave birth to the son of God, who could perform miracles etc
2. He was not right in the head
3. He was a magician/showman
4. He existed but his actions have been greatly exaggerated over the generations
5. He never existed and it is all a myth.

Occam's razor, anyone?
 
Last edited:
by Occam's razor I'd say option 4 is the most likely of cases. christian philosophy, specifically the philosophy of jesus, is basically socrates lite--now with half the calories! moral teachers aren't uncommon, and if one acquires enough followings, why wouldn't his followers make up things about him after he's dead?
 
It's a shame that people so misunderstand the Principle of Parsimony and think it necessarily leads them to truth.
 
it does not necessarily, but under normal circumstances, the simplest explanation is best. since we are specifically discussing the likelihood of jesus christ existing, occam's razor is useful.
 
dr. cello said:
since we are specifically discussing the likelihood of jesus christ existing, occam's razor is useful.
Click to expand...
No.
It's convenient.

If you are apt to believe in the supernatural and God, then the Principle of Parsimony is absolutley meaningless and pointless.
If you are a non-believer, it is an impotent way to back up your position by suggesting that the supernatural and God is unlikely, therefore still pointless and meaningless regarding the existence of an historical Jesus Christ figure.
 
If you are trying to determine the likelihood of an event, knowing which is the least likely is helpful, yes?
 
From what has been posted here and from what I have read elsewhere, it seems highly likely that Jesus was an actual historical character.

Aside from the Bible, there seems to be no credible evidence that he did some of the actions attributed to him by his followers.

My reading of the Bible leads me to believe that his intent was to reform what he considered bad practices. It sseems to me that it was Paul that really started a new religion after Jesus died.

It reminds me of the original Martin Luther who tried to fix what he considered improper activity by the Catholic church and ended up being responsible for Protestenat religions getting started.

BTW: The lack of references to Jesus in various contemporary sources is not surprising. The region around Jerusalem was not improtant at that time. If you check American accounts of South America, you find nothing much about British, Dutch, and French Giuana. These were three tiny countries on the Northern coast of South America. By now they probably have different names or are part of some other country.
 
Arguably the most important event in the history of the universe and nobody but a small handful of shepherds that can't even agree on the basics make mention of it. Now I know why he said not to blink or you might miss the second coming.. lol
 
There have been several sources that have been said to be non-biblical references to Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius being the most popular. The obvious problem with these three authors is that neither lived during the time of Jesus. Josephus lived c. 37 - 100 CE; Tacitus c. 55 - 117 CE; Suetonius c. 69 - 140 CE.

For the undereducated among us, "c." refers to "circa" or "about" and "CE" refers to "Common Era," also known as "AD."

The most popular of these so-called non-biblical confirmations of Jesus was written by Josephus. But there are a lot of problems with his work. First, there's the time differential: The alleged Christ died before Josephus was born. Second, Josephus was an Orthodox Jew, yet he is supposed to have written of one who was to be the answer to his messianic hopes?

Third, if Jesus was so important to Josephus -a messiah- why only devote a paragraph? Indeed, the entire passage of about 127 words appears out of place and inserted. Josephus refers to the story of Jesus as a "terrible misfortune," hardly the position expected of an Orthodox Jew. The expected opinion of a Christian, but not a Jew! It seems clear that early Christians went about redacting and editing many historical documents in their attempts to justify their cult and gain some ground over other, more established, cults like the Judaic.
 
Cris said:
Angeleic B,

You need to put up or shut up. If you can't then your claims and words are worthless.
Click to expand...

You dunce - your other dunce skinwalker has given a slight insight into what I was talking about - although he really should have kept his views to himself - unless of course he is one of the foremost experts on human history that I mentioned.
Thank you.
 
Prince_James said:
KennyJC:

People have different bedtimes. Let's allow him atleast a day to respond.
Click to expand...

actually i was out playing volleyball with my Christian friends.
and now i am going out to play again - ha! ha!

thank you.
 
AB,

You dunce - your other dunce skinwalker has given a slight insight into what I was talking about - although he really should have kept his views to himself - unless of course he is one of the foremost experts on human history that I mentioned.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
So from that you appear to be agreeing that there is no objective independent historic support for Jesus.

So why do you choose to believe in a mythical character?
 
Dinosaur,

From what has been posted here and from what I have read elsewhere, it seems highly likely that Jesus was an actual historical character.
Click to expand...
Why? Have you actually found any evidence that he existed? Take care not to simply believe becuase so many others believe. That is a logical fallacy often likened to the not too distant past when nearly everyone on the planet believed the world was flat.

Choosing to believe that Jesus existed because of overwhelming unsupported opinions is hoping that truth can be determined by democracy - it doesn't work that way. To reach a meaningful conclusion you must discover evidence, and if not then your only rational option is to conclude that his past existence cannot be determined.
 
Angelic Being said:
You dunce - your other dunce skinwalker has given a slight insight into what I was talking about - although he really should have kept his views to himself - unless of course he is one of the foremost experts on human history that I mentioned.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

It is becoming quite clear that Angelic Being has no real knowledge or insights regarding non-biblical references to the alleged Christ.

The first person known to have read the alleged Josephus passage was Bishop Eusebius at around 340 CE. At this point, early Christians had torched entire libraries of texts that they found disagreeable -clearly and attempt to purge the intellectual world of knowledge and history as it attempt, quite successfully, to replace histories with its own propaganda. Eusebius was a well known propagandist of his time.

If there is a credible source of non-biblical nature for Jesus Christ, let someone suggest it. If Angelic Being fails to do so, then it is obvious he is ignorant and is yanking our chains with his "do your own research" arguments. An argument, not surprisingly, manifests itself in the Pseudoscience subforum when you criticize believers of UFOs, bigfoot, and ESP.

Magical thinking and the relentless behavior of believers is what is interesting here, not anything "factual" about Christianity.
 
praise be to God Most High, destroyer of knowledge and defiler of intellect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top