Watchtower February 11, 2004 Share Watchtower Member February 11, 2004 that Jesus even existed? I would tend to think that a man of this magnitude would have at least some statues or text written about him as many of the other important people of the time. Some shred of evidence.. Besides the bible. : ) "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]" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa February 11, 2004 Share Playaa Member February 11, 2004 first off, there were other writings about him. secondly you say "besides the Bible" when the Bible is proven time and time again to be historically accurate and there are more ancient copies of the Bible than any other book in history. we have more "origional texts" of the Bible than we do of Shakespears works...and there are fewer errors (copy-wise) in the Bible copies than in the copies of Homer's Illiad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight February 11, 2004 Share White Knight Member February 11, 2004 I'm 100% sure that Jesus existed. I'm fairly sure that its a documentable historical fact as well. Now all the other stuff in the bible...well, thats up for grabs...especially since what we presently call the new testament was put together in 300AD (IIRC) from over 200 books. There are actually countries in africa today that use Christian Manuscripts that are NOT in the bible (Book of Tim, Book of Mary). What that means for the Christian religion is up to the individual...and out of the context of this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL February 11, 2004 Share dwEEziL Member February 11, 2004 Check out a secular (meaning "non-Christian") historian who is a contemporary of Jesus' (meaning he lived during the same time) named Josephus. He is a WELL respected historian and he makes references to the life of Jesus. There really was a Jesus of Nazareth who went around proclaiming to be the Son of God, did many miraculous works, died on a cross and was buried in a tomb which is now empty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower February 12, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member February 12, 2004 I'm 100% sure that Jesus existed. I'm fairly sure that its a documentable historical fact as well. Now all the other stuff in the bible...well, thats up for grabs...especially since what we presently call the new testament was put together in 300AD (IIRC) from over 200 books. There are actually countries in africa today that use Christian Manuscripts that are NOT in the bible (Book of Tim, Book of Mary). What that means for the Christian religion is up to the individual...and out of the context of this discussion. Find me some evidence he existed.. No records at all other than stuff that was written long after the fact.. Why was there noone who claimed to have met the earthbound Jesus? Noone. Everyone wrote After the fact. Fact: Many other Gospels existed... The acts of one man determined which were kept. Show me proof and I will tell you why it's not.. You can say there is, but can you show me.. I would investigate your proof a little before posting.. Lets go 1 at a time.. White, how could you be 100% sure without even knowing if there is historical evidence? Because someone told you so? How about WMDs? Did they exist? Sorry I had to do it About Josephus.. The context of the passage in which he mentions "Christ" does not fit into the context of the rest of that work. It's pretty obvious looking at the entire document that that passage was inserted after the fact.. "About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. 12 Now no loyal Pharisee would say Jesus had been the Messiah. That Josephus could report that Jesus had been restored to life "on the third day" and not be convinced by this astonishing bit of information is beyond belief. Worse yet is the fact that the story of Jesus is intrusive in Josephus' narrative and can be seen to be an interpolation even in an English translation of the Greek text. Right after the wondrous passage quoted above, Josephus goes on to say, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." Josephus had previously been talking about awful things Pilate had done to the Jews in general, and one can easily understand why an interpolator would have chosen this particular spot. But his ineptitude in not changing the wording of the bordering text left a "literary seam" (what rhetoricians might term aporia) that sticks out like a pimpled nose. The fact that Josephus was not convinced by this or any other Christian claim is clear from the statement of the church father Origen (ca. 185-ca. 154 CE) - who dealt extensively with Josephus - that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, i.e., as "the Christ." Moreover, the disputed passage was never cited by early Christian apologists such as Clement of Alexandria (ca.150-ca. 215 CE), who certainly would have made use of such ammunition had he had it! " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower February 12, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member February 12, 2004 Josephus also apparently wrote this. "Ananus… convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." Also realize the Josephus was a Jew and only had his writings preserved by Christians.. B.T.W, some manuscripts contain the above passages, some did not which tells me that some serious interpolation was being done.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa February 12, 2004 Share Playaa Member February 12, 2004 It's pretty obvious looking at the entire document that that passage was inserted after the fact.. that's pretty funny Watch...you're doing what you're telling us we can't do...you're just repeating other peoples words as your proofs... how many of Josephuses works have you read? how do you know that passage doesn't fit with the rest of his writings? sorry but when it comes down to it there is no 100% with history...I do know that if we're talking historical accuracy the Bible wins...give me some time but I have a paper at my parents house I can dig up on the topic hopefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower February 12, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member February 12, 2004 It should be abundantly clear to everyone then is what you are telling me.. And the quotes I use are because you're right, I'm not well versed in Josephus.. They obviously are! Has anyone else read any Josephus? Or do you only know that his one passage of many writings is your best proof of Jesus. And if it were beyond a burden of doubt, then it would be undeniably true to everyone. You would have no choice but to believe like as you do in gravity. 1 side can make an observation that the other side can cast much doubt to. You would need the account of many. I also know for a fact we have very accurate, minute details of other peoples lives in that time and before yet hardly any mention of this one very important one.. And to take an ancient writing and believe that it hasn't been altered in any way through the years is a very... well proposterous assumption. So we've discussed the Josephus stuff.. Or did we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar February 25, 2004 Share Crowbar Member February 25, 2004 This That and the other thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane February 25, 2004 Share jane Member February 25, 2004 nice links there crow. got any thoughts on the matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower February 25, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member February 25, 2004 (edited) So you're basically going by the gospels.. Which weren't writeen till at Least 70 years After the fact that it happened.. Some at the turn of the century.. Still no eyewitness accounts of anything including the resurrection. THis in my mind is the biggest factor.. If many people saw someone rise from the dead, they would have freaked out.. Many accounts would have been preserved. Statues erected etc.. Also there is an enormous amount of literature from the Romans and Pontius Pilate's killings.. Nowhere mentions Jesus.. This would have been The most influential event of that time, yet no recordings of it until Much later... And you can't say for sure who actually wrote the gospels.. They were assigned names. They were written anonymously.. So basically you have a few authors here and there deciding to try to convince people that this happened. Actually Crows Second link is to the contrary of his beliefs.. A short quip from that site.. "Perhaps for the first time in its history, the field of New Testament research is in disarray. The most progressive circle of scholarship within it, the group known as the Jesus Seminar, has recently come to the conclusion that Jesus' corpse, far from being resurrected from the dead, probably rotted in some unknown grave, and that the Christian movement did not begin out of a conviction that Jesus had risen bodily from his tomb. More conservative ranks are fiercely resisting such trends, and even popular publications like Bible Review have occasionally become battlegrounds for a civil war in which Christian scholars on both sides are attacking each other's competence and integrity and taking no prisoners" Another.. I suggest you read as much of the whole paper as you can .. "Christianity was allegedly born within Judaism, whose basic theological tenet was: God is One. The ultimate blasphemy for a Jew would have been to associate any man with God. Yet what did those first Christians do? They seemingly took someone regarded as a crucified criminal and turned him into the Son of God and Savior of the world. They gave him titles and roles formerly reserved for God alone. They made him pre-existent: sharing divinity with God in heaven before the world was made. Nor was this something that evolved over time. All this highly spiritual and mythological thinking is the very earliest expression we find about Jesus." Thoughts? Edited February 25, 2004 by Watchtower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane February 25, 2004 Share jane Member February 25, 2004 first off, Peter was there. So was John Mark. And the gospel of Mark was transcribed by John Mark, spoken by Peter. John the Apostle was eyewitness as well, and so was Matthew. The only non eyewitness was Luke, who was the second(?) gospel, written around 70ad. Marks was written around 63 AD, just before the temple was destroyed(again) by Cesaer. So yes they were around 30 someodd years afterword, but they were eyewitnesses to be sure. These guys were disciples of Jesus and saw what happened with their own eyes. This is not really speculation, since most letter of that time were actually carried to several churches and everyone was told who wrote them. So, it wasnt normally necessary to title them. John is titled "the one who the Christ loved" which was his way of refering to himself throughout the book(Jn 19:26, 21:7) and other books(1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation). Paul was one of the exceptions to the rule about addressing the letters. He generally let everyone know who was writting since it was a more specified letter, to a specified church. Rip away jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa February 25, 2004 Share Playaa Member February 25, 2004 as well I've heard the argument that the Roman's didn't provide evidence of the resurrection so it must not be true. The Roman soldiers on their post there would have been killed for falling asleep. You should check out the Liar/Lunatic/Savior theory sometime, it specifically talks about this. If the Romans really did have Jesus body in the Tomb then all they had to do was show it. But instead they couldn't do anything, and there are documented records (of course they're documented in the Bible so you won't believe their historical accuracy) of thousands of people seeing him afterward...and the Roman leaders could do NOTHING to disprove this. Plus there's the fact that all 12 apostles (disciples) died because of this belief. No man in this world would die for a lie...they die for what they firmly and truly believe...so those disciples who died saying Christ had risen from the dead....they firmly and truly believed that. For men that spent 3 years with the guy, I'd say they would be able to recognize him (except of course when he didn't want them to, which happened once). "Perhaps for the first time in its history, the field of New Testament research is in disarray. The most progressive circle of scholarship within it, the group known as the Jesus Seminar, has recently come to the conclusion that Jesus' corpse, far from being resurrected from the dead, probably rotted in some unknown grave, and that the Christian movement did not begin out of a conviction that Jesus had risen bodily from his tomb. there is absolutely ZERO evidence for that...how is that worth arguing over? it's just some people ideas because they can't accept the Bible as the historically accurate document it is. bleh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane February 25, 2004 Share jane Member February 25, 2004 whew playaa im glad you have so much passion. Zeal maybe? I just cant get heated here because its too much fun to hear Watchtower taking things and throwing them the face of reason mmmm jk Watch you got me on many grounds... but you gotta give credence to the Lord/Liar/Lunatic theory, though maybe you should pick up a copy of More than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell. Or better yet find Mere Christianity by C.s. Lewis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul .gc February 25, 2004 Share soul .gc Member February 25, 2004 Find me some evidence he existed.. No records at all other than stuff that was written long after the fact.. Why was there noone who claimed to have met the earthbound Jesus? Noone. Everyone wrote After the fact. Wrong. As you even quoted the Josephus article yourself. Josephus wrote about Jesus twice in his books that we know of since there are no existing copies of the full set. The one you quoted above is hotly disputed to this day. There are scholars on both sides of the fence that have convincing arguments as to why it is or is not part of the original text. The first few words fit in with how Josephus wrote; "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...", this is not how christians referred to him at the time so fits with his writings. But like I said it is hotly contested. In his book, The Antiquities, he writes: "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." Then we have Tacitus who wrote the following: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most michievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." Let's look at Homer's work. Do you take it as being written by Homer? There are fewer then 650 Greek copies around today from the 2nd and 3rd century. Homer wrote it in 800BC though. There are more then 5000 Greek copies of the bible in different forms. Let's take Alexander the Great. How do you know he existed? The biographies written about Alexander were written more then 400 years after his death in 323BC. Yet no one disputes the biographies as being historically accurate. The other thing to be remembered is that during these times people did not write as they do today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower February 26, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member February 26, 2004 (edited) "Wrong. As you even quoted the Josephus article yourself. Josephus wrote about Jesus twice in his books that we know of since there are no existing copies of the full set. " Right before I gave evidence as to the doctoring of those two passages and how they are now thought to be inserted for Christian purposes. Josephus spent Much more time talking about other supposed messiahs like John the Baptist.. And On Tacitus. There is much debate to wether that passage is authentic or not. If he were going by actual Roman records, he would not have called him "Christos". A religous name, but by his given name.. Another problem with this passage is that Pontius Pilates title in Rome was Prefect no procurator. If indeed Tacitus was looking at the actual records, he wouldn't have made that error. So it seems it was probably just repeating the story told by a Christian.. The writing of Tacitus are also the only "evidence" that Nero persecuted any Christians. The view of him from Christian historians is markably different from the Jewish and other historians of the time.. So evidence? No. As far as Alexander the Great. I would be Much more inclined to believe that Alexander Did exist given the amount of Early writings depicting his life.. Not just one or two with arguable authenticity and motive. Alex the Greatest. Edited February 26, 2004 by Watchtower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul .gc February 26, 2004 Share soul .gc Member February 26, 2004 Right before I gave evidence as to the doctoring of those two passages and how they are now thought to be inserted for Christian purposes. Josephus spent Much more time talking about other supposed messiahs like John the Baptist.. Wrong. You gave evidence about the possibility of the one passage being added at a later date. The other passage by Josephus, from The Antiquities, is not disputed by most scholars. There is much debate to wether that passage is authentic or not. If he were going by actual Roman records, he would not have called him "Christos" There is? Where? This one is largely accepted by most scholars. There will always be extremists looking to oppose any viewpoint though. Basically whatever we put forward as proof you are denying on the basis teh church put it into the document in later years? I would be Much more inclined to believe that Alexander Did exist I did not say he existed. I said we take his biographies to be accurate, yet they were written 400 years after his death. So 400 years has no problem in your mind but writing about Jesus from the same generation are questionable? Are you also saying that Jesus did not really exist? I have yet to read one credible historian that says this is the case. Every historian I have read, whether they believe in Christ or not, does not dispute the fact that a man named Jesus Christ lived and was around in that era and had some type of following. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower February 27, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member February 27, 2004 (edited) I think my beliefs are evident. I just don't see the proof that you would think you should see.. Look at caesar, look at aristotle. The people wanting to record their existance were free from agenda. For the most part. They arent saying believe in alexander the great or burn forever.. Small difference. That has a profound effect on people. They had much to gain to make believe. Soul, back up your claims with some quotes or something.. Any unbiased source(think guerilla news) I've ever seen casts Much speculation.. Why are churches so torn over these issues.. You act like it's so black and white. "I have yet to read one credible historian that says this is the case. Every historian I have read, whether they believe in Christ or not, does not dispute the fact that a man named Jesus Christ lived and was around in that era and had some type of following." But you can also cite only a couple of How many ancient historians that wrote about anything? I want links.. Edited February 27, 2004 by Watchtower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane February 27, 2004 Share jane Member February 27, 2004 come at it from this way watch: if you dont believe in Him, you'll miss out on seeing Him forever(not burn). There is a misconnception here that should be made clear. Jesus' message was one of love, not of fire and brimstone. Im not gonna get into this other argurement about whether Jesus existed. Its evident to me that He did or else someone better than Him did. Think of it this way. One would have to be better than perfect to create a perfect being in their minds. If I were to create something, it would have bits of me installed in it. And since you concede that we sin, then sins would come through my creation. If twenty people got together, there would still be sins insdie this creation. If 10million did it, we would still be no closer to perfect. jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul .gc February 27, 2004 Share soul .gc Member February 27, 2004 Soul, back up your claims with some quotes or something.. Any unbiased source(think guerilla news) I've ever seen casts Much speculation.. Why are churches so torn over these issues.. You act like it's so black and white. Ummm....I did. Josephus wrote about him twice. Tacitus wrote about him as well. I even agreed with you that the first Josephus comment is highly contested, the other two are not. I am also not sure what church you have been visiting but I have never been to one that was 'torn' over the issue of Jesus existing. As I said earlier, are you saying he did not exist? There are thousands of copies of the bible, some dating back to 70ishAD, that say he existed. There are writings by Josephus and Tacitus during the same generation that say he existed. But you can also cite only a couple of How many ancient historians that wrote about anything? I want links Now Josephus and Tacitus are not credible? We can list lots of historians that have written about Christ. You asked earlier for someone to provide proof that Jesus was written about at the time he lived. That has been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL February 27, 2004 Share dwEEziL Member February 27, 2004 Watch, none of us can convince you of anything you don't want to believe. We don't see our faith as unfounded because we base it on what we have 1) felt/heard during our prayer time, 2) seen/heard in church settings, and primarily 3) what we have read in the Bible. We take the Bible as truth so all of our arguments for our faith will be primarily based on the Bible. For those that do not believe the Bible to be true or inerrant, this "proof" doesn't hold much weight. John 20:29 (NASB) "Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa February 27, 2004 Share Playaa Member February 27, 2004 Watch, none of us can convince you of anything you don't want to believe. amen to that. and sometimes Watch...it's pretty clear you don't want to believe, you just want to show us why not to believe...maybe I'm wrong...but that's the impression I get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppySurprise February 27, 2004 Share PuppySurprise Member February 27, 2004 seconded playaa.....but that does not mean we cant still try to help you believe, but we as Christians don't try to pressure you to change your mind, we just hope and pray you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar February 27, 2004 Share Crowbar Member February 27, 2004 to look at it from a different point of view, A religion with the size and impact of Christianity could not have been founded without a real person. IF Christianity was/is a joke, the founders were VERY good at telling a joke, and thus they would not be stupid enough to base their entire joke on someone who didn't exsist. Coupled with that, Jews recognize that there was a man named Jesus, though they refuse to accept him. Muslims revere that same Jesus as a great prophet. Christians look to yet the same Jesus as their saviour and their God. Three of the world's far-est reaching religions, all talk of a man named Jesus. Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place for proof. Simply saying the name Jesus brings to mind religion. He was, is and always will be associated with religion. For this reason, mention of him in the secular histories is small. However, religious texts are often the best histories we can get from ancient periods. The fact is, the Bible is very clear to those who choose to believe it. To those who don't want to believe it, there are hundreds of excuses. There is ample evidence throughout history, in nature, and in our own minds that supports the Bible. There is no big puzzle to put together, it's all there, accept it or don't. Why didn't God make it crystal clear, writing his name in the clouds for all to see, removing all question of his exsistence? I don't know for sure. My guess is this: God promises rewards in heaven for those who acknowledge that he is Lord. There would be no reason to reward us if the way was obvious. If there were really no choice. What reward is there in finding $20 when you know it's in your pocket? How much greater is the reward when you put on an old pair of jeans, not worn in months, and find $20 in the pocket? The jeans where there all along, the $20 in the pocket, but you never would have found the $20 if you hadn't looked for it. I don't know if that explains it well or not, seems to make sense as I type it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower February 28, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member February 28, 2004 Watch, none of us can convince you of anything you don't want to believe. amen to that. and sometimes Watch...it's pretty clear you don't want to believe, you just want to show us why not to believe...maybe I'm wrong...but that's the impression I get. It's not that I don't want you to believe, it's that I want you to think about exactly what you believe in. And it's not that I don't Want to believe, it's that I can't. The religous story of an intermediary(jesus) between God and man was nothing new at the time. It was in fact a time when many civilizations were looking for such.. That story is not unique to Christianity you guys are right. So what makes it any more correct? Why isn't Judiasm "the way"? "A religion with the size and impact of Christianity could not have been founded without a real person" Think about how many people believe in Any religion.. Are you saying all of their Gods are real as well do to the impact it has on their people? "Three of the world's far-est reaching religions, all talk of a man named Jesus." They're all based on the same stories.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.