No historical Jesus

[Boss]

Name the scholars Boss...I will give you another discrepancy Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth and yet nazareth was not built until many years after his supposed birth how do we as logical being explain that could it be that itwas made up and told many years after the fact ...could we not say that certain people pushed an agenda ..How can we be certain that other things supposedly attributed to this man are not also fabricated and embellished including his very exsistance....

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship,Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

[14]Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".

[15]Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

[16]James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".

[17]Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

[18]Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again--- Not here to argue discrepancies in the Bible.

However: Archaeological research has revealed that a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles (3.2 km) from current Nazareth, dates back roughly 9000 years to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B era.[35]

James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: "Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century CE. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea."[38]Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ as "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to "a maximum of about 480."[39] In 2009, Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[40] Other sources state that during Jesus' time, Nazareth had a population of 400 and one public bath, which was important for civic and religious purposes.[41]

 

[Indeependent]

i beg to disagree some people have recorded their lineages and they go back thousands of years even further back then two thousand years...If Jesus was so important and he exsisted then those people would have kept records as well....The stories are embellishments, fables and a mish mash of conjecture...Even the gospels contradict each other...No at the best it is a tale tale at the most it is a bald faced lie and it has become accepted as truth even though there is no proof whatsoever...Regardless people just accept it either because they have group pride and affiliation or they are brainwashed or they are just too lazy to figure things out for themselves....

They DID keep records! It's mostly the New Testament now! But there is a video on YouTube from a guy who presents non-religious evidence of Jesus' existence. People have written books about it as well... all of this is being dismissed.

I'm not here to defend the Gospels, this debate is strictly over whether or not Jesus existed. Your own common sense should tell you that he must have. How in the hell could someone who never existed, have been so widely written about in such detail and have such a profound effect on humanity for 2,000 years? In the past, there have always been skeptics of whether Jesus was the Messiah or could do miracles... but the notion of Jesus not existing is relatively new and it comes about because we're now 2,000 years removed from the time.

Waxing bullshit again?
He was written about by ONE GUY at least 30 years AFTER the event.
In fact, TNT was a MAJOR fail until the Counsel of Nicaea 300 years LATER.
Damn, don't you do ANY research before posting?

No... He was written about by ALL of his apostles. Before, during and after his life. I am not here to argue the validity of the Holy Bible. That is a completely different argument and you keep trying to introduce it in order to refute my argument that Jesus existed. It's getting really annoying.

What I keep seeing happen here is... you want to use your credentials to bully others into believing your opinion as fact. I have no problem with you saying that you don't believe the Christians who claim Jesus existed because you don't trust their evidence. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.... it's when you start trying to demand that we accept this as a FACT that I have a problem. You've not proven your case and you can't prove it. You keep trying to prove it by flaunting your credentials and poo-pooing Christianity, and that won't do the trick.

If it is correct that his apostles DID chronicle his every move, Christians and Scholars have a MAJOR problem...
All of the MISTRANSLATIONS and MISQUOTES.
You can't fuck up words and verses left and right and get away with it.
Yet there is an entire BASTION of Christian Apologists who come up with the most incredible, not to mention INCREDULOUS explanations for all the errors.
You can't fuck up so much and claim it's HEAVEN BREATHED!
Oh wait! You can...you just keep killing people left and right who point out the errors.

The Scholars better damn well state that The Gospels According to {Place Name Here} were hearsay and not second person witnesses.

 

[Indeependent]

Name the scholars Boss...I will give you another discrepancy Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth and yet nazareth was not built until many years after his supposed birth how do we as logical being explain that could it be that itwas made up and told many years after the fact ...could we not say that certain people pushed an agenda ..How can we be certain that other things supposedly attributed to this man are not also fabricated and embellished including his very exsistance....

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship,Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

[14]Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".

[15]Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

[16]James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".

[17]Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

[18]Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again--- Not here to argue discrepancies in the Bible.

However: Archaeological research has revealed that a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles (3.2 km) from current Nazareth, dates back roughly 9000 years to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B era.[35]

You already know my opinion of soft science Scholars with an agenda.
These guys would be starving and homeless if they came to any other conclusion.
Anyway, my previous post is the really cool post.

 

[shimon]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

 

[HaShev]

uggg the Nazareth debate.....helps if they knew of the newer found documents proving it wasn't built until
90ad. The Roman letters to their army dated 90ad ordered them to build the town. So Shimon is right.
Also their arguments to prove Nazareth is actually the opposite and proves a deception or compilation, because they'd be opposing their NT that says
Capernaum was his home town.
Why would they lie?
1)compiled characters need new names birthdates and hometowns
2) Capernaum was an embarassment because it was like Soddom.
Capernaum sources hometown liken to Soddom:
Matthew 4:13
Matthew 11:23
Matthew 17:24
Mark 1:21,2:1 etc.....
3) they merely used a similar term Hanotzrim and Nazarene to confuse people into believing the Nazareth switch otherwise they have to admit the stupidity in mistaking similar terms, not knowing the meaning of the terms made them make up the new hometown that was not yet built. What this exposes is what other mistakes by not knowing Hebrew did they create in their fallaciously claiming Jesus in text that they never understood.

 

[Boss]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

 

[HaShev]

quote:Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Problematic since the NT says slew &hanged on a tree not crucifixion. It was Yehuda and Theudas crucified by Rome for revolts but the son of mary of 100bc was stoned & hanged on passover.,,,
wahhh wahhh wahhhh!
Parting gifts to the right, take the ricearoni but leave the fancy display, thanks!

Source:
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" also read Deuteronomy 21:22.

Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned (slew) and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christanic mythologies say.
The cross is a later addition(300ad) which has been soundly debunked.
The crucified by Rome Galilean at the time of Herod & Lysanias was Yehuda the tax revolter, he died in 6bc a far cry frim the ad era crucified christ by the Jordan river who's apostles were martyrs.
That ad era cross bearer was Theudas who died in 45 ad. That's at least 3 christs (trinity) converged into the Jesus image that your cross claims exposes.

 

[Searcher44]

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

Let's say a person called Jesus existed. Let's say he was an incredible teacher.Let's say he had Powers to somehow cure some sick people (like televangelists today claim to have). That still doesn't make him the messiah. "Messiah" is a Jewish term and prophecy and every Jewish scholar I've read said the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah has no corroboration in their scriptures, the OT. The story of Christ in the NT in no way matches the Jewish description or prophecies so the validity of "the Christ" of Christian myth as the Messiah is in truth devastatingly diminished. Thus the portrayal of Jesus as "divine" is gravely damaged and questionable as him being the Messiah is a large part of the story that led to his deification.

Well, I can't comment on whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. I don't subscribe to that belief but a lot of people do. This argument is over whether or not a man named Jesus existed. The scholars and experts have no trouble proving that he did exist. In fact, they've even done research to confirm the events surrounding the birth of Jesus, down to the positioning of Jupiter in the night sky, which guided the "wise men" on their journey, probably from Persia.

So are all the experts and scholars wrong? Well, that is a possibility. I don't think it's a very good possibility, but it is still possible. It's an invalid argument to say Jesus didn't exist because we can't find any "proof" that satisfies our minds.

I have a great grandparent who was Cherokee. She changed her name to "Sarah" and married my great grandfather who was Black Dutch. Back then, Black Dutch people were people who were trying to escape their lineage. Mine were German peasantry who escaped persecution and fled to the Black Forrest and eventually came to America. They were the original "Black Dutch" people and later, Jamaicans and Hatians and even some native Americans would use the term as their lineage. I'm telling this story for a reason, bear with me...

Now... let's say we jump ahead in time 2k years.. do you think someone might have a problem confirming that "Sarah" existed? I may have written books about her from accounts others told me... I never met her myself but I knew people who had. Well, in 2k years, when trying to confirm that she existed, why would you dismiss my books? Why would you try to dismiss scholars of Cherokee history or Black Dutch history? As you can see, it gets to be problematic proving Sarah existed, especially if you are going to dismiss credible evidence.

My reply is going to be mostly concerned with this part of your post;

"This argument is over whether or not a man named Jesus existed. The scholars and experts have no trouble proving that he did exist. In fact, they've even done research to confirm the events surrounding the birth of Jesus, down to the positioning of Jupiter in the night sky, which guided the "wise men" on their journey, probably from Persia"

First, I don't think the OP was just referring to the mundane question of whether or not a man called Jesus, a normal human being, existed around that time.This "normal human being" I'm talking about must have been a charismatic leader, maybe a gifted philosopher, must have had some talents that singled him out and brought him some contemporary fame at least. I think the OP was referring to the modern Christian's view of Jesus, the whole package. That would include his divine nature, being a miracle worker, having fulfilled prophecies etc. So I guess you and the OP are disagreeing whether this modern Jesus existed. You seem to think that the miraculous nature of Christ's birth (the leading star and the Magi e.g.) has been confirmed by "scholars and experts". I don't know how you choose which scholars and experts you choose to believe but I have read many who even disagree that a normal man called Jesus existed (not saying I agree with them). And you must know this account of the birth with the Star and the Magi only occur in the one Gospel, Matthew. Neither Mark (considered to be the earliest Gospel), or Luke or John mention the Star or the Magi and diverge in other ways from Matthew. So I guess I would also have to asked why you choose to believe Mathew's account?

Anyway as I suggested the question of whether an ordinary human named Jesus existed is rather mundane and not worth 2000 yrs. of controversy. And sorry to say, unless your great grandparent Sarah could walk on water or cast out demons or turn water into wine I don't think anyone 2k yrs. from now will care one way or the other if she actually existed.

 

[Thunderbird]

Jesus to me is the amalgamation of several texts. He died in 30 ad during the reign of Tiberius and his adherents were annoying to Claudius and Nero. It makes sense his adherents were annoying Roman authorities during the time of Josephes.

One of the sources for Jesus was his contemporary, Hilliel. There are several places in the gospels which seem direct quotes from Hilliel.

Later Christian scholars made him dour and nasty, but the gospels portray a kind forgiving man with a sense of humor and a taste for silly puns

TNT paints Jesus as a whiny, nasty bastard which is why Southern Baptist Bible Believers are whiny, nasty bastard.
Don't take my word for it. read TNT.

And Jews never whine? lol

 

[Indeependent]

Jesus to me is the amalgamation of several texts. He died in 30 ad during the reign of Tiberius and his adherents were annoying to Claudius and Nero. It makes sense his adherents were annoying Roman authorities during the time of Josephes.

One of the sources for Jesus was his contemporary, Hilliel. There are several places in the gospels which seem direct quotes from Hilliel.

Later Christian scholars made him dour and nasty, but the gospels portray a kind forgiving man with a sense of humor and a taste for silly puns

TNT paints Jesus as a whiny, nasty bastard which is why Southern Baptist Bible Believers are whiny, nasty bastard.
Don't take my word for it. read TNT.

And Jews never whine? lol

Only when we're pissed off...you know...like you.

 

[Indeependent]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

 

[Thunderbird]

He taught his faith, Judaism.

Judaism does not for the most part prize forgiveness and charity for all. Judaism is characterized instead by absurd legalism and ethnic chest-pounding.

Jesus was often critical of Judaism, the Pharisees for example.

Woes on the Pharisees and the Experts in the Law
37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

43 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.

44 “Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.”

45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

53 When Jesus went outside, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54 waiting to catch him in something he might say.

You are quoting the Jew Hating TNT.
Now find like verses in The Jewish Scriptures.

Sure.

Numbers 31

7 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every male. 8 They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. And they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. 9 And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones, and they took as plunder all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. 10 All their cities in the places where they lived, and all their encampments, they burned with fire, 11 and took all the spoil and all the plunder, both of man and of beast. 12 Then they brought the captives and the plunder and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

13 Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chiefs of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

There's good and bad in the OT, but don't you think Jewish people should acknowledge the jingoism in the OT and try to be less ethnocentric?

 

[HaShev]

He was written about by ALL of his apostles. Before, during and after his life.

Actually none of the people the books are named after were actually the authors, even church elect have admitted this. This is why they make terrible errors in not understanding Hebrew or Judaic concept and use of words.
Remember they were killed by Rome for their revolt before they could recant to tell you their leader failed them (this was christ Theudas). Those that got to recant were squelched, like Thomas and portion of Luke. This woukd be like when the US gov't stormed Waco the followers of David Koresh never got a chance to tell you Ooops, David wasn't who they thought he was. Luke did say something to that affect about his christ, but it was removed from the text in his name.

 

[Boss]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

I guess you missed it but the context was to present someone outside the influence of Christian religion to attest that Jesus existed. Why would Tacitus write about Jesus being crucified if Jesus didn't exist? He was no fan of Jesus, he called him some terrible names. He wasn't a Christian, he was secular.

 

[Boss]

He was written about by ALL of his apostles. Before, during and after his life.

Actually none of the people the books are named after were actually the authors, even church elect have admitted this. This is why they make terrible errors in not understanding Hebrew or Judaic concept and use of words.
Remember they were killed by Rome for their revolt before they could recant to tell you their leader failed them (this was christ Theudas). Those that got to recant were squelched, like Thomas and portion of Luke. This woukd be like when the US gov't stormed Waco the followers of David Koresh never got a chance to tell you Ooops, David wasn't who they thought he was. Luke did say something to that affect about his christ, but it was removed from the text in his name.

Again... I cannot argue that the Scriptures haven't been molested. The Romans basically took over the religion for a while.. then I think the Greeks had a go... then King James of England rewrote everything... I am sure a lot of information was messed up and mixed up, altered or left out, embellished or maybe even fabricated entirely... but not the life of Jesus Christ.

The Gospels of Jesus Christ are unquestionably the most influential literary works in human history. To try and advance the ridiculous argument that the main character never existed is something I just can't take seriously. It's like trying to believe we never landed on the moon... I know people are convinced that we didn't... I have tried my best to listen to their arguments but I just don't buy the evidence and the same is true here... I don't buy your evidence.

 

[Indeependent]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

I guess you missed it but the context was to present someone outside the influence of Christian religion to attest that Jesus existed. Why would Tacitus write about Jesus being crucified if Jesus didn't exist? He was no fan of Jesus, he called him some terrible names. He wasn't a Christian, he was secular.

From the Wikipedia link I see he was a Roman Senator.
He was obviously a great lover of the anti-slavery Jews as most of the Roman Senators were.
And I'm really wowed by the fact that "Jesus" is so important to the career of Tacitus that the word "Jesus" is mentioned in microscopic footnote [1].
I even went to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689&tag=ff0d01-20
Author "Robert Van Voorst pursued doctoral study in religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York City while he served as a minister in the Reformed Church in America."

I need elaborate no further.

I'm telling ya...I LOVE the Internet!
Keep trying

 

[Searcher44]

Boss, your mentioning of Bart Ehrman woke me right up, he's my favorite writer on biblical stuff. Last time I made the trip to the Downtown main library branch was to pick up a couple of his books. Usually I settle for online reading or my local library branch. I recommend readers of this thread to check him out. Lots of youtube videos too. And you're right, he even wrote a book defending the historicity of Jesus. I'll caution though, you won't find an "orthodox" Jesus in his writings. Very commonsensical, easy to read. I'll give a few quotes as example;

“Scholars sometimes use technical terms (i.e., Hypostases) for no good reason, other than the fact that they are the technical terms scholars use.”
― Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee


“In this connection I should stress that the discovery of the empty tomb appears to be a late tradition. It occurs in Mark for the first time, some thirty-five or forty years after Jesus died. Our earliest witness, Paul, does not say anything about it.”
― Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee

"Jesus was a first-century Jew, and when we try to make him into a twenty-first century American we distort everything he was and everything he stood for.”
― Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

“Some people may think that it is a dangerous attitude to take toward the Bible, to pick and choose what you want to accept and throw everything else out. My view is that everyone already picks and chooses what they want to accept in the Bible...I have a young friend who whose evangelical parents were upset because she wanted to get a tattoo, since the Bible, after all, condemns tattoos. In the same book, Leviticus, the Bible also condemns wearing clothing made of two different kinds of fabric and eating pork...Why insist on the biblical teaching about tattoos but not about dress shirts, pork chops, and stoning?”

“All we would need to do would be to read the Bible and accept what it says as what really happened. That, of course, is the approach to the Bible that fundamentalists take. And that’s one reason why you will not find fundamentalists at the forefront of critical scholarship.”
― Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation Of A Jewish Preacher From Galilee

“The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.”
― Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible

“There were lots of early Christian groups. They all claimed to be right. They all had books to back up their claims, books allegedly written by the apostles and therefore representing the views of Jesus and his first disciples. The group that won out did not represent the teachings of Jesus or of his apostles. For example, none of the apostles claimed that Jesus was “fully God and fully man,” or that he was “begotten not made, of one substance with the Father,” as the fourth-century Nicene Creed maintained. The victorious group called itself orthodox. But it was not the original form of Christianity, and it won its victory only after many hard-fought battles.”
“One of Jesus’s characteristic teachings is that there will be a massive reversal of fortunes when the end comes. Those who are rich and powerful now will be humbled then; those who are lowly and oppressed now will then be exalted. The apocalyptic logic of this view is clear: it is only by siding with the forces of evil that people in power have succeeded in this life; and by siding with God other people have been persecuted and rendered powerless.”
― Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

Read more here.

 

[Indeependent]

He was written about by ALL of his apostles. Before, during and after his life.

Actually none of the people the books are named after were actually the authors, even church elect have admitted this. This is why they make terrible errors in not understanding Hebrew or Judaic concept and use of words.
Remember they were killed by Rome for their revolt before they could recant to tell you their leader failed them (this was christ Theudas). Those that got to recant were squelched, like Thomas and portion of Luke. This woukd be like when the US gov't stormed Waco the followers of David Koresh never got a chance to tell you Ooops, David wasn't who they thought he was. Luke did say something to that affect about his christ, but it was removed from the text in his name.

Again... I cannot argue that the Scriptures haven't been molested. The Romans basically took over the religion for a while.. then I think the Greeks had a go... then King James of England rewrote everything... I am sure a lot of information was messed up and mixed up, altered or left out, embellished or maybe even fabricated entirely... but not the life of Jesus Christ.

The Gospels of Jesus Christ are unquestionably the most influential literary works in human history. To try and advance the ridiculous argument that the main character never existed is something I just can't take seriously. It's like trying to believe we never landed on the moon... I know people are convinced that we didn't... I have tried my best to listen to their arguments but I just don't buy the evidence and the same is true here... I don't buy your evidence.

[SIC] The most influential literary work[SIC] that has barely been read by the average person.
But those Selected Verses are DELICIOUS!

It's DEFINITELY a best seller.

BUT...
A SERIOUS question...
How many people have you met that claim they have EVER actually READ TNT?
Probably less than 20 and THEY'RE probably exaggerating.
I know they're exaggerating because I start discussing it with them and they know nothing except for the selected verses.

I know 1 guy (on my block) who has actually read TNT...1 guy.
And I meet a LOT of people.

BTW, if TNT is corrupt, it can't be admitted as evidence.

 

[Boss]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

I guess you missed it but the context was to present someone outside the influence of Christian religion to attest that Jesus existed. Why would Tacitus write about Jesus being crucified if Jesus didn't exist? He was no fan of Jesus, he called him some terrible names. He wasn't a Christian, he was secular.

From the Wikipedia link I see he was a Roman Senator.
He was obviously a great lover of the anti-slavery Jews as most of the Roman Senators were.
And I'm really wowed by the fact that "Jesus" is so important to the career of Tacitus that the word "Jesus" is mentioned in microscopic footnote [1].
I even went to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689&tag=ff0d01-20
Author "Robert Van Voorst pursued doctoral study in religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York City while he served as a minister in the Reformed Church in America."

I need elaborate no further.

I'm telling ya...I LOVE the Internet!
Keep trying

LMAO... Jesus christ... I didn't say Tacitus seminal work was about Jesus! ...Is THAT what you now want? A non-Christian who spent his whole life writing about Jesus who he personally met? I mean... how many more obstacles do you need to construct to avoid objectively evaluating the evidence? Maybe we can find some Roman who worshiped Lucifer and he wrote about Jesus all his life?

Yeah, he did become a Roman senator later in life. He was a famous historian. People like him got to become senators. He wasn't sympathetic toward Christians in his writings of Jesus, he was very unkind.

And if you are going to pick apart the experts on the basis of ...oops, this guy's got religious beliefs... sorry! Well, you won't get very far because about 85% of humanity has some kind of religious belief. Most people who devote their lives to the research of Jesus and the Bible are PROBABLY going to be religious. Just a guess... don't know what the stats are for Atheist Theologians and Biblical Historians?

 

[Indeependent]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

I guess you missed it but the context was to present someone outside the influence of Christian religion to attest that Jesus existed. Why would Tacitus write about Jesus being crucified if Jesus didn't exist? He was no fan of Jesus, he called him some terrible names. He wasn't a Christian, he was secular.

From the Wikipedia link I see he was a Roman Senator.
He was obviously a great lover of the anti-slavery Jews as most of the Roman Senators were.
And I'm really wowed by the fact that "Jesus" is so important to the career of Tacitus that the word "Jesus" is mentioned in microscopic footnote [1].
I even went to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689&tag=ff0d01-20
Author "Robert Van Voorst pursued doctoral study in religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York City while he served as a minister in the Reformed Church in America."

I need elaborate no further.

I'm telling ya...I LOVE the Internet!
Keep trying

LMAO... Jesus christ... I didn't say Tacitus seminal work was about Jesus! ...Is THAT what you now want? A non-Christian who spent his whole life writing about Jesus who he personally met? I mean... how many more obstacles do you need to construct to avoid objectively evaluating the evidence? Maybe we can find some Roman who worshiped Lucifer and he wrote about Jesus all his life?

Yeah, he did become a Roman senator later in life. He was a famous historian. People like him got to become senators. He wasn't sympathetic toward Christians in his writings of Jesus, he was very unkind.

And if you are going to pick apart the experts on the basis of ...oops, this guy's got religious beliefs... sorry! Well, you won't get very far because about 85% of humanity has some kind of religious belief. Most people who devote their lives to the research of Jesus and the Bible are PROBABLY going to be religious. Just a guess... don't know what the stats are for Atheist Theologians and Biblical Historians?

Calm down and read my post objectively.
You are truly digging deep at any reference, regardless of how subjective and minor to try and prove something improvable.
Expert? The guy comments on TJS based on The King James Version.
He can't even read Hebrew!

Nothing going on here.

BTW, there were no Christians until at least 100 years after 30AD.
It took a millennium for TRCC to form what we know today as Christianity and it's STILL going through reformations.