If Jesus was real why is he absent from any historical texts?
- Thread starter Problematic Pat
- Start date
don't know basic shyt about your own religion breh
, You said "many of the books of the New Testament were written years after Jesus death, some of them almost 100 yrs later"I said its not true
Paul's letters were written between 48–60 CE, only 15–30 years after Jesus died. Paul even quotes a creed in 1 Corinthians 15 that scholars date to just a few years after the crucifixion so the core beliefs were being documented almost immediately, not generations later.
The gospels themselves aren't as late as you're suggesting either. Mark is around 70 CE, Matthew and Luke around 80–90, John around 90–95. That's 40–65 years after Jesus, well within living memory, especially in an oral culture where tradition was carefully preserved.
And it's not like we're only relying on Christian sources. Tacitus, a Roman historian, mentions Jesus around 116 CE, and Josephus, a Jewish historian, references him around 93 CE. These guys had no reason to be doing Jesus any favors, yet there he is in their writing.
Peter Popoff
PROTECT YA NECK!! 🖕🏽🇺🇲
Not to mention, the 2nd John (Yohannan in Aramaic) wrote revelation while he was exiled on the island of Patmos and he was a disciple that walked with Jesus (Yehoshua).
But essentially the new testament was multiple testimonies written into account of that time.
Create structure, obedience for the common people to be ruled over
ReturnOfJudah
Veteran
Took me 5 seconds
Non-Christian Historical Mentions of Jesus
Non-Christian Historical Mentions of Jesus
- Josephus (c. 93 AD): Jewish historian who mentioned Jesus twice in Antiquities of the Jews, calling him a wise man, a doer of wonderful works, and referring to his crucifixion and followers.
- Tacitus (c. 116 AD): Roman historian who, in his Annals, reports on Nero's persecution of Christians, stating that "Christ" was executed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign.
- Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD): A Roman governor who wrote to Emperor Trajan describing Christians as those who sang hymns to "Christ as if to a god".
- Suetonius (c. 120 AD): Mentions "Chrestus" (a common misspelling of Christ) in relation to unrest among Roman Jews.
- Mara bar Serapion (c. 73 AD): A Syrian who wrote a letter to his son mentioning the murder of a "wise king" of the Jews, widely believed to be Jesus.
- The Talmud: Mentions Jesus in several places, suggesting he was a teacher who led people astray.
- Paul's Letters (c. 50–60 AD): The earliest written sources (earlier than the Gospels) that mention Jesus' life, teaching, death, and resurrection.
- Clement of Rome (late 1st century): Early church leader who writes about Jesus' teachings, death, and resurrection.
- Polycarp & Ignatius (early 2nd century): Early church leaders who provide additional testimony about Jesus.
yea i feel like theres a ton of exaggeration to add to the 'mystery' because the original story was probably something more like katt williams beating up shaq. wouldnt be surprised if the loaves and fishes thing was just an allegory for sharing that got twisted through hundreds of translations over the years lol
i try not to worry about shyt like this and just treat other people decent. what frightens me is the people out there who pretty much tell you they'd do horrible shyt if not for their religion keeping them from doing it
King Harlem
Superstar
Even in the Bible, Jesus' reach wasn't that extensive. The majority of the spread of Christianity occurred after his death by his disciples.
desjardins
Veteran
Save the juelzing breh
I said its not true
Paul's letters were written between 48–60 CE, only 15–30 years after Jesus died. Paul even quotes a creed in 1 Corinthians 15 that scholars date to just a few years after the crucifixion so the core beliefs were being documented almost immediately, not generations later.
The gospels themselves aren't as late as you're suggesting either. Mark is around 70 CE, Matthew and Luke around 80–90, John around 90–95. That's 40–65 years after Jesus, well within living memory, especially in an oral culture where tradition was carefully preserved.
And it's not like we're only relying on Christian sources. Tacitus, a Roman historian, mentions Jesus around 116 CE, and Josephus, a Jewish historian, references him around 93 CE. These guys had no reason to be doing Jesus any favors, yet there he is in their writing.
, ain't no oral tradition amongst poor ass jews of that era. Christianity was basically a cult back then, you acting like the greatest academics of the time were doing sanity and accuracy checks 40+ YEARS after Jesus died 
Majority of the New Testament was written by people who never met or saw Jesus, then it was modified further by european cacs hundreds of years later
Peter Popoff
PROTECT YA NECK!! 🖕🏽🇺🇲
A bunch of nephilim nıggas playing in the NBA right now.
Wemby great great great great grand uncle is probably Gilgamesh or some shıt.
Treblemaka
President, BYNKRadio.com (Retired)
If someone showed people 2000-4000 years ago a Playstation 5 and a 4k TV then told them to describe it in their own words, it would sound incoherent and disorienting.
A modern person (21st century) could read the description a thousand times and wouldnt 100% be sure what they were talking about.
null
...
rubbish. (well maybe your dumb ancestors
).TV i.e. seeing something remotely is exactly as per the root terms in many languages "remote vision". people knew what pictures were. simples.
same with playstations. people were not idiots back then.
in fact most inventions are describable before we actually invent them.
it ain't rocket science.
not to mention that no one said they had to describe in "their own words".
heaven is a more complex and advanced concept that any of us can explain the mechanics of to this day yet they in the bible knew they were seeing heaven ini visions because god told them.
finally the bible is descriptive not explanatory.
they described heaven they didn't explain how it worked.
same as describing a TV does not mean you have to explain the science behind it.
absolute rot and poor reasoning from you.
if someone cured death in 20000 years that wouldn't stop us describing what they did today. we might not be able to explain the how now BUT we could say what it does i.e. "stops dying".
if descriptive statements for future inventions were totally beyond the power of god and man how did da vinci grasp helicopters?
"The pen-and-ink sketch outlines an idea for a flying machine similar to a modern helicopter, with a spiral rotor or "aerial screw" based on a water screw, but intended to push against the fluid of the air instead of water."
"The "aerial screw" was one of several aerial machines drawn by Leonardo, including an early parachute, an ornithopter and a hang glider."
you must be slow.
even animals - say dogs can know what things do without being able to understand how they work.
TS;DR you can describe something's effects without having to bridge the science.
I see what you're saying but these sources are structurally different than the evidence that OP is searching for.
From what he was saying in the original post it seems like he's looking for contemporary, primary conversation about the man while he was alive. A red herring fallacy was used in your post where you focused on conversations about Christianity as a movement, not conversations about jesus. Your reply also strayed away from very clear supernatural element that @Problematic Pat was searching for. There is a subtle but hard difference between the two things.
It's the difference between me writing in 1890 that "there is a group of crazy people who worship a man with two golden tablets in Utah" vs "on December 23rd 1843 my wife went to town and we saw Angels descending to give Joseph Smith two golden tablets". One is a description of a group of people and one is a description of something that was actually happening and a historical figure. In a similar vein, your list of sources proves a Christian movement existed, but it lacks a contemporary historical record of the man's feats.
Finally all of the religious references from within the church are obviously biased. Going to talmud in this instance is post facto and non-historical because it has been redacted and rewritten multiple times after 200CE. Furthermore, attempting to use the Bible as proof of the stories within it creates a circular reasoning loop , where you state " this book is true because this book says it's true"
Last edited: