Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

a reply to: stosh64

I don't feel as though your "Lord" is under attack here.

I said this earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again.

If Jesus is who the Bible claims him to be, then we must consider that HE wanted his earthly existence to be a provocative question and debate. Otherwise, clearly, HE would have made it so that clear evidence of his humanity would be irrefutable, him being God and all.

Believing in Jesus Christ is a matter of faith, not fact. Carry on.

Isn't there also a theory that Alexander was Jesus? Seems I have read that on a couple threads here before.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: stosh64

I don't feel as though your "Lord" is under attack here.

I said this earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again.

If Jesus is who the Bible claims him to be, then we must consider that HE wanted his earthly existence to be a provocative question and debate. Otherwise, clearly, HE would have made it so that clear evidence of his humanity would be irrefutable, him being God and all.

Believing in Jesus Christ is a matter of faith, not fact. Carry on.

I appreciate your reply, to me it IS irrefutable. I wish all these debates could be conducted in the manner you just phrased that post. Thank you.
That was my bright spot for the day.

a reply to: windword

Yes, but Josephus was hardly a Roman historian, but a Jewish one. Just because he is often referenced with his Latin name, it doesn't mean he's a Roman historian. His Hebrew name was Yosef ben Matityahu and he was born in Jerusalem to a lady who supposedly claimed royal descent to the house of חשמונאים‎ or Ḥashmona'im, the Hasmonean dynasty contrasting the House of David. Josephus presents himself in Greek as «Iōsēpos (Ιώσηπος), son of Matthias, an ethnic Hebrew». If you want a Roman historian, Tacitus is the one you want to be looking for. The part of his work on history that would likely include the time of Jesus supposed ministry has been removed from the corpus at a certain time, and destroyed. We can only hope that one day a complete Tacitus surfaces, including books 11 to 16 covering the history related to the period 29-32 AD. And hopefully, this whole shambles could be settled once and for all.

I feel I left something out.
I think there is a lot of ignorance on the Faith side of this debate for sure. I am not accusing just your side.

He said that "Hosea 4:6 my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge ..." And that is often the case.

I believe there is no bad information to consider, my Faith is stronger thanks to ATS.

And thanks to contributions like yours winword.

I just cant stand the "you believe so your stupid" mentality. Although many times the Faithfull are lacking in Knowledge.

Sadly.
Peace

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Isn't there also a theory that Alexander was Jesus? Seems I have read that on a couple threads here before.

It's an absurd one if so, Alexander was 300 years before Jesus. That would be like saying Justin Bieber was George Washington.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

There was a plaque accompanying the trophy-style execution of Jesus, where the Latin phrase «Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum» often shortened INRI in art and lithurgy, was written on the very cross, and translated into Hebrew and Greek languages. It translates «Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews». Unnecessary to add, this implies being a threat to Rome.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: NOTurTypical

There was a plaque accompanying the trophy-style execution of Jesus, where the Latin phrase «Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum» often shortened INRI in art and lithurgy, was written on the very cross, and translated into Hebrew and Greek languages. It translates «Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews». Unnecessary to add, this implies being a threat to Rome.

Pilate did that specifically to piss of the Jews. And it wasn't in the Latin that made them furious, check out what the acrostic that was formed in the Hebrew by that statement. (Yeshua HaNazarei vMelech HaYehudim) It's wasn't an indictment, it was a middle finger to them for forcing his hand in killing a man who he said 7 times was innocent.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

The context and the humor comes out when you realize what the Jews felt about acrostics formed in their language and what that particular one said.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Isn't there also a theory that Alexander was Jesus? Seems I have read that on a couple threads here before.

It's an absurd one if so, Alexander was 300 years before Jesus. That would be like saying Justin Bieber was George Washington.

Not that...if I recall correctly it was Constantine that they claim "created" Christianity and used Alexander as the figure for which Jesus was based on. It went into depth on the age of them both at death being 33, him being call the King of Kings, his defeating a large army at the Battle of Issus, and some other stuff I can't recall.

It was quite a compelling argument as far as I recall, but this is coming from someone that doesn't believe in Jesus or any religion so take it for what it's worth.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

It was quite a compelling argument as far as I recall, but this is coming from someone that doesn't believe in Jesus or any religion so take it for what it's worth.

To me it's not compelling at all. Jesus was born in 2 B.C. and Alexander died in 323 B.C. Furthermore, Constantine wasn't nearly as spiritual as people want to make him out to be, and finally he didn't invent Christianity, he legalized it and ended the persecution of Christians. Theodosius II, his 2nd successor, was the Emperor who declared it the official religion of the Empire.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

For someone who was so afraid of the Jews that he went against gut instinct to kill Jesus out of fear of revolt, why would he then go on to put that plaque on the cross to piss them off even more? That doesn't sound right at all. If he were afraid of them then he wouldn't have done that.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Seven times innocent, still he sacrificed him to feed the beast, by sentencing him for high treason and possibly a few other things like stealing a donkey and rallying it through Jerusalem causing all kinds of tumults, and further break in to and entering a house to have a party with his crew during which he supposedly ordains replacement human blood and flesh. Further armed resistance and causing an uproar close up to the Passover sabbath week.... There were probably a list of charges the length of the man himself. Totally crash and burn. A Classic.

Jesus said to Peter when he asked him about how many times one should forgive ones enemy: «as many as seven?» Peter asked. «As many as seventy times seven,» Jesus replied». Pilate could have pleaded Jesus innocence 70 times 7 times, but he still executed him, hey, Pilate even made extra room for the King of Nazareth on Calvary, by setting free another convicted criminal called Jesus in his place, Jesus Barabbas, to still the crowd's cries for the crucifix.

But I agree. The Romans actually loved the guy. Jesus was taken in high regard by Roman soldiers, an officer even saved his life on Calvary. A whole Roman Legion stormed into certain death on his command. Jesus was the son of Caesarion, and the rightful heir to the thrones of Rome, Greece, Egypt and Jerusalem. The Passion of Jesus is the story of mirrors and smoke. One day I'll make a movie about what really happened during those daunting hours surrounding Jesus' supposed execution. The soldiers covered his rescue up and saved his life.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It was quite a compelling argument as far as I recall, but this is coming from someone that doesn't believe in Jesus or any religion so take it for what it's worth.

To me it's not compelling at all. Jesus was born in 2 B.C. and Alexander died in 323 B.C. Furthermore, Constantine wasn't nearly as spiritual as people want to make him out to be, and finally he didn't invent Christianity, he legalized it and ended the persecution of Christians. Theodosius II, his 2nd successor, was the Emperor who declared it the official religion of the Empire.

Like I said, it is a theory on the religion that I read about. The earliest depictions of Christ are FAR different from any currently accepted. He was originally beardless and portrayed more as an imperial force. Throughout the years he was given a beard and aged in depictions, which is what is the more accepted version now. Part of the research done, from what I recall, was showing how much the earliest depictions of Christ were VERY similar to the depictions and descriptions of Alexander.

I am no scholar on the matter, but Constantine, from what I have read, could very well have been the one to "create" Christianity based on Alexander's reign. I would not put it past Roman rule to write history to their advantage and they had the means and the populations to do it.

Either way, I am not versed enough in religion to debate it, and as it is based in faith, not fact, there really is no way to debate it.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am no scholar on the matter, but Constantine, from what I have read, could very well have been the one to "create" Christianity based on Alexander's reign.

Oh that's silly, Irenaeus wrote the "Against Heresies" volumes refuting Christian heretic beliefs and movements more than a century before Constantine was born.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am no scholar on the matter, but Constantine, from what I have read, could very well have been the one to "create" Christianity based on Alexander's reign.

Oh that's silly, Irenaeus wrote the "Against Heresies" volumes refuting Christian heretic beliefs and movements more than a century before Constantine was born.

Like I said, I am no scholar in this area, but could have been that this was started prior to Constantine and he was just the one to put it down on paper. Still falls in line with Alexander though.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: NOTurTypical

There was a plaque accompanying the trophy-style execution of Jesus, where the Latin phrase «Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum» often shortened INRI in art and lithurgy, was written on the very cross, and translated into Hebrew and Greek languages. It translates «Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews». Unnecessary to add, this implies being a threat to Rome.

Pilate did that specifically to piss of the Jews. And it wasn't in the Latin that made them furious, check out what the acrostic that was formed in the Hebrew by that statement. (Yeshua HaNazarei vMelech HaYehudim) It's wasn't an indictment, it was a middle finger to them for forcing his hand in killing a man who he said 7 times was innocent.

And still he had to «die for for our sins» according to the church, scribes and especially the Pharicees represented by Saul Paulus. Crucifying and publicly humiliating a person is hardly how you'd treat a king, unless of course he is the «Lamb of God». Such should be slaughtered and sacrificed even according to common Christian dogma. Devillish dogma.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

The context and the humor comes out when you realize what the Jews felt about acrostics formed in their language and what that particular one said.

Yes, please talk of humour just as they squeeze the crown of thorns well down to the Master's ears, cutting deep into his forehead and skull. How proper of you.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Yes, please talk of humour just as they force the crown of thorns well down to the Master's ears. Proper of you.

Are you even following what I said? The humor I mentioned was in Pilate sticking his finger directly into the eyes of the Jews. I never said the crucifixion itself was funny, are you mad?. The acrostic formed in Hebrew of the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" said "YHVH". That's why he wrote exactly what he wrote and wouldn't change it.

"What I have written, I have written."

The point was the Romans didn't see him as any threat, nor did they see him as guilty. Pilate declared 7 times that he was innocent and he found no fault with Jesus.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

For someone who was so afraid of the Jews

He was afraid of the Jews revolting, that would have been a massive deal with Caesar. So in truth, Pilate was scared of Caesar and rightfully so. And wrote the plaque in the specific manner as he did to piss them off for forcing his hand with the treat of a mass revolt.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And what is your source to this supposed rendering INRI as יהוה in Hebrew translation? Me thinks yous makes this ups..

a reply to: NOTurTypical

He still risked putting "King of the Jews" above his head. The Jews supposedly despised him and wanted him dead, why wouldn't they revolt over a Roman official claiming they wanted their king dead? It doesn't make sense. He decides not to piss them off then turns around and pisses them off anyways? I'm pretty sure he would have been smarter than that.