Why do some christians claim that documents exhist that were written during Christs life?

Question

I read a question someone asked about what eye witness written proof is out there that christ exhisted and was who he claimed to be.After researching this a bit I cam across something called The Passion Narrative which was estimated to have been written around 30-60 a.d.
I skimmed through it and it is not an eyewitness account but a passed down account of the crucifiction.30-60 years after the fact Stories get twisted and exagerated in less time than that.
So my question is why do some christians still claim that scrolls and documents written during Christs life that mention him still exhist out there? Post links to them if you have them.

I'm asking for proof not "Faith" here so please do not preach here because that is all faith is.

liberal whatever your name is you said :
"Jesus was crucified around 30 a.d"

Ummm last i read the time period a.d. reffers to AFTER DEATH.The years christ lived are reffered to as c.e. (whatever that means) Your statement is not very thought out bro.

let me quote this person:
" j h: Before the printing press, the oral tradition was enough for historical authenticity. Nice try though.
Hey why don't you go ahead and try to PROVE that George Washington existed. I bet you can't prove it. "

Actually there is not only a known burial place of GW but the national archives have a lock of his hair as well you idiot.

cricket person or whatever her name is said this:
"Stories NOW may get twisted in less time, but back then, they did not. Because writing materials were so hard to come by, most events were passed around orally.

Thirty years was a VERY short amount of time back then."

Orally is the key word here.Photos are proof,official documents are proof, ORAL stories get exagerated! You also mention that 30 years was a long time back then,most people died very young back then.You only think Methuselah lived to be 969 because the bible tells you this.30 years was a lifetime for most people in that time.

Answer 1

Because they are not historians, obviously.

Answer 2

Just so you know, most documents of that time no longer exist in their original form. There are writings from within sixty years (though they are copies of the originals), and any historian will tell you that that's NOT long enough for mythical stuff to be added in. Anything up to a hundred years afterwards is considered accurate.

And here's an interesting fact:
The oldest extant manuscript of the New Testament dates back to about 125 A.D. It's a fragment of the Gospel of John, if I'm not mistaken. That puts it as dating within thirty years of the original!
The only ancient manuscript that comes even CLOSE is Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey. The oldest extant copies date back to four hundred years after they were written.

Stories NOW may get twisted in less time, but back then, they did not. Because writing materials were so hard to come by, most events were passed around orally.

Thirty years was a VERY short amount of time back then.

The history of Alexander wasn't written until five hundred years after his death, and its details are disputed less by historians than the New Testament, which was written within 30-60 years. Why is that?

Edit: I think you missed my point. And actually, people did live for more than thirty years at that time. Between fifty and 60 was the norm. Lifetimes shortened for some time around the Middle Ages, but people before the fall of the Roman Empire were pretty healthy and sanitary.

And don't mistake me for a fundamentalist. I don't take everything in the Bible literally, including how long men like Methuselah lived. In all truth, I don't know how long he lived. What I DO know, however, is that while naturally men do not have such long lifetimes, if God exists (which I obviously believe He does), He can ignore the natural laws and make things happen that aren't ordinary.

No, Jesus wasn't written about while He was alive. Things were passed around orally. If anyone didn't believe He existed at that time, they could have traveled to Jerusalem and met Him. Some did.

Answer 3

I tend to doubt much of anything exists.

The Phrasees had him crusified because he was a threat and it was to be a lesson to others as well. That lesson worked as Peter denied knowing Jesus. One would assume anyone would be afraid given the neo-Facist rulers.

In the U.S.S.R. and their states talk of such things as Freedom in front of your younger children could get you into trouble if they mentioned this in school. Definately mentioning religious matters got you into trouble.

I know this first hand as we had a distant relative out from Romania and they spoke about this and how they feared their own children.

Let's take a more liberalized and recent example. The assisnation of Presiden John F. Kennedy in the 1960. The only documentation was have of this is some 8mm film footage, some eye witness accounts, Doctors who worked on him at the hospital and the official concluslion Oswald acted alone and did the shoot, an issue that is hotly debated by some indepedent foresnic experts who provide different lines of fire and directions of things.

The Warren commission was set up to deliver the final say, the white paper on this and then all evidience was sealed until the 22nd century, long after all living people would be dead.

This is how things work.

As a result the "official line" stands as the only saga.

I'm sure the official line of the Pharasees was, he never existed, it never happened, don't speak about these things are maybe someone will nail you to a tree.

Answer 4

With the exception of Josephus, I'm unaware of any eyewitness writings about Jesus from or close to his time. Josephus is suspect as he only refers to Jesus once and in generally expressed a distaste for Messianic figures.

Edit
Pontias Pilate was only recently confirmed as existing by a stone inscription... he left no writings.

Martin S brings up some good points however "Epistle of Clement " do not claim to be an eyewitness account nor does it reference the gospels... It does reference Paul's letters and sayings associated with Christ. This is akin to some one who was born 20+ years after George Washington dieing writing about his military career - possible correct, but not eye witness.

Answer 5

Is really strange....people so careful with their registries and accounts like Romans don´t say nothing about the things that happened when Jesus was dying. Nothing. Even more, the Bible says that when Jesus came back from tomb many others do. Nothing again. I only can suggest you the reading of sacred books of other religions, specially the "historical books". You'll find amazing things that can make you believe that someone is copying the "hero´s life". If possible for you read the book: "The Myth of the Hero" of Otto Rank.

Answer 6

Did you not ever think that most of the eye-witness accounts were destroyed in history? When the Official Bible was compiled they decided what books would go in it, so that means there were many other accounts to be considered. Most likely after the Official Canon was established, other books found that didn't say the same thing were destroyed.

Answer 7

I think it's obvious that they don't know the history of their religion. The psychological controls are so pervasive that it's almost impossible for them to get beyond the fear of knowledge that's been instilled in them.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

THE BIBLE GOSPELS

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels got written by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels got written during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

Answer 8

I don't know of any Christians who claim documents exist that were written while Jesus was still here on earth since the books of the New Testament were all clearly written after He went back up to Heaven. Maybe you are misunderstanding what they are saying or they are not expressing themselves clearly enough. Perhaps they mean that books like the book of Luke contain accounts of eyewitnesses who were alive when Jesus was here on earth.

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.


New Testament - In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."

Answer 9

Before the printing press, the oral tradition was enough for historical authenticity. Nice try though.

Hey why don't you go ahead and try to PROVE that George Washington existed. I bet you can't prove it.

Answer 10

Jesus was crucified around 30 a.d so what you say is wrong and though i believe there was someone named jesus that had many followers i dont believe he was God's son

Answer 11

There are no documents of any kind in existence, that mention Jesus, that were written during his alleged lifetime.