Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Entreri06

No scholar worth his salt would argue against the existence
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. PERIOD!

If I'm right no honest scholar or arciologist at all has ever said there was no doubt he existed let alone was resurrected...

a reply to: randyvs

LOL! Salt, like talk, is cheap.

RESPECT MY AUTHORITAY!

a reply to: Entreri06

Pretty much, my wife is a witch we were married in a Wiccan ceremony.

when you only cover 1 major religion when every religion has inconsistencies, it's a hit piece.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

If Muhammad could then why not Rome and Josephus? They had a very firm grasp on the Greek mythologies and expanded upon them, no reason they couldn't or wouldn't do the same with Judaism and their invented Jesus.

Muhammad had Judaism and Christianity to build off of anyways so to say it was created out of thin air just isn't true.

a reply to: windword

No, scholars doubt some references, not all:

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:


Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a-b)
Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
As a torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

(same link)

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Control the flow of information to control a fairly significant portion of the populous.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If Muhammad could then why not Rome and Josephus?

They easily could have!! Which refutes your idea. Because had Rome wanted to invent the religion they wouldn't have spent 300 years trying to wipe it out of existence, they would have decreed it the official religion when the tomb was found empty.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: windword

I wouldn't be surprised if Josephus invented Jesus for Rome. There are some interesting similarities between Josephus' life and Jesus'.

Josephus invented Jesus for Rome? The same Rome that didn't legalize Christianity or make it the state religion until the 4th century A.D.?

Point. :p well played!

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

No, scholars doubt some references, not all:

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:


Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a-b)
Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
As a torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

(same link)

The key word is "SOME". The fact is the Talmud, and any perceived reference to "Jesus" has been butchered by Christians who censored, edited and interpolated the texts, so it is ALL unreliable.

It's not worth the debate.

1 Thessalonians, is a book from the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The first letter to the Thessalonians was probably the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of AD 52,[1] making it the first written book in the New Testament.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

No, scholars doubt some references, not all:

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:


Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a-b)
Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
As a torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

(same link)

The key word is "SOME". The fact is the Talmud, and any perceived reference to "Jesus" has been butchered by Christians who censored, edited and interpolated the texts, so it is ALL unreliable.

It's not worth the debate.

Everything's worth debate, but only one side is right!

a reply to: Irishhaf

Good point, that's exactly what they did with the NT, it's a controlled flow of information used to control a large portion of the population. It's worked pretty well so far.

a reply to: Entreri06

What I mean is, it's not worth debating line by line, from the Talmud. We can't know what the original text looked like, so why bother.

The Jewish community of scholars insist that the Talmud never mentions a character who could fit the biblical Jesus. Christians see Jesus in everything and everywhere they look.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

No, scholars doubt some references, not all:

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:


Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a-b)
Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
As a torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

(same link)

You can add one at least one more to that which kind of sucks because it was a good lesson however it had been completly fabricated.

Take one of the most famous tales from the New Testament, which starts in John 7:53. A group of Pharisees and others bring a woman caught committing adultery to Jesus. Under Mosaic Law—the laws of Moses handed down in the Old Testament—she must be stoned to death. The Pharisees ask Jesus whether the woman should be released or killed, hoping to force him to choose between honoring Mosaic Law and his teachings of forgiveness. Jesus replies, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.’’ The group leaves, and Jesus tells the woman to sin no more.

It’s a powerful story, known even by those with just a passing knowledge of the Bible. It was depicted in Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ and is often used to point out the hypocrisy of Christians who denounce what they perceive to be the sins of others. Unfortunately, John didn't write it. Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages. It does not appear in any of the three other Gospels or in any of the early Greek versions of John. Even if the Gospel of John is an infallible telling of the history of Jesus’s ministry, the event simply never happened. Moreover, according to Ehrman, the writing style for that story is different from the rest of John, and the section includes phrases that do not appear anywhere else in the Bible. Scholars say they are words more commonly used long after that Gospel was written.

Source the OP article.

a reply to: windword

There is a more than credible argument in favor of
a risen Christ using only the facts that 95% of critics
concede Windword. Blah hahhhahah! Or whatever.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Grimpachi

As far as your request for historical accounts you will not find that anything was documented during his lifetime. It was decades later before that happened and none were first person accounts.

Yet we accept the historical accounts of Alexander the Great and no historical records of him exist except those written 400 years after he died.

There are numerous surviving ancient Greek and Latin sources on Alexander the Great, as well as some oriental texts. The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, Justin, Strabo, Athenaeus, Polyaenus, Aelian, and others. All of them possessed the methodical research, the scientific method of history, and their writings consist of various historical subjects.
In constrast with the apostles who had no social epiphany whatsoever, and wrote some biased outrageous stories about a supernatural subject, the above documented various historical subjects with no bias.

Other than the Greeks we have also other contemporary sources for his existence:
The Babylonian Royal Diary, kept for millenia, mentions him. This is why we are absolutely certain about the precise date of his death; the diary records the day that 'The King Died' to use its words. This is a day to day account of the most important events befalling Babylon/Babylonia, not a narrative historical account.

There is also a contemporary administrative document from Bactria, written in Aramaic, that records the moment of Alexander's arrival in Bactria in pursuit of the main assassin of Darius III, Artaxerxes V or Bessus. Indeed, the same documents record the moment that Bessus reached Bactria too, and as the documents both name him as King Artaxerxes and Bessus we have absolute confirmation about his status as a usurper.
That means we actually do have direct evidence of his existence.

Furthermore there are like two dozen cities named after him stretching from greece to india, coins from his reign, and inscriptions of his name dated to his reign. His generals are well known and many became kings and founded dynasties in their own right. Greek culture spread throughout the middle east leaving a host of archealogical evidence as a direct result of his conquests. There really seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting Alexander's existence.

Now please show me the evidence of Jesus existence other than the religious non historical bible and the Josephus references to christians who followed a guy named Jesus, when he was writing about the origins of christianity.

Is there really a comparison?
It's mind blowing what christians can say, when trying to justify their faith.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

They easily could have!!

So you admit they easily could have created Christianity.... that's exactly what I've been saying. So we agree, good to know.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: windword

There is a more than credible argument in favor of
a risen Christ using only the facts that 95% of critics
concede Windword. Blah hahhhahah! Or whatever.

WOW! You mean there's more credible evidence that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead, than not? He'd have to have been born first to die. Where's that evidence of that, you know, of the virgin birth, the tax census that led the holy family from Nazareth to Bethlehem, evidence of a celestial object, a record of Jewish baby boys murdered by Herod......

What are the FACTS that 99% of biblical CRITICS agree on?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: windword

There is a more than credible argument in favor of
a risen Christ using only the facts that 95% of critics
concede Windword. Blah hahhhahah! Or whatever.

Hate to say it man, but you're pretty far off the mark on that one...

Christians might say there are facts behind the resurrection, but that's about it...

In reality there really isn't anything to back it up aside from the one book... which is Christian

a reply to: windword

It's 95. And I said concede.

No.1 The disciples were convinced they saw the risen Christ.

How do you explain that? What caused them to believe after doubting?