The Evidence For Jesus' Existence Is Nothing But Hearsay

Ision

I just got told that wikipedia.org not a reliable source on the other post ..
So I dont guess yall can use it either ...lol
Whats fair is fair right >

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

There's evidence now? Where?

The perfect harmony of nature. That's evidence it was created by intelligence. There is evidence in my life, it has changed permanently, where for years I had tried to make it work by my own efforts and failed miserably. My prayers are answered, I can personally see that things I pray for are answered.

I do agree with you that nature was designed by intelligence. This is just my personal feeling and opinion.

However, the intelligence could be God, Jesus, Allah, conscious universe, Brahman, and many others.

As for your life changing by outside forces and your prayers answered, that could be attributed to the law of attraction, believing in higher self, etc.

Evidence of intelligence in the universe does NOT equal to proof of Christian's God.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by mhc_70
Dude, put the shovel down while you can still get out.

You have a strange definition of "known fact" if Joseph Wheless is the author your going to use as proof. LOL, I mean really, do you know anything about the guy? He was a known militant atheist and so serious about being factual did not even seek the help of Hebrew, Greek or Latin translator. He also claimed, in the same book, that just about the whole New Testament is a forgery.

I don't use Wheless (although he is correct on this point.)
I posted a linked hurriedly, yes.

Anyway -
I refer you to the solid consensus of modern scholarship.
It's a forgery.
A KNOWN forgery.

Any research will show this.
You STILL haven't done any.
Incredible.
en.wikipedia.org...

I have to admit, your pretty entertaining, and we agree that Nicodemus was probably a forgery. Nevertheless, and I repeat, the letter was used as an appendix in an attempt to lend credibility due to its authenticity, afterall none of the lists of forgeries in this thread contain the letter, it must still be thought of as authentic.

Due to my obvious lack of research, I haven't been able to find the complete article, yet, but here is more on the letter.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Ision
I just got told that wikipedia.org not a reliable source on the other post ..
So I dont guess yall can use it either ...lol
Whats fair is fair right >

Amazing how many ways ny name can be mangled :-(

Wikipedia?
Sure, can be controversial.
But this is not controversial stuff.
This is known historical info.

Any decent reference or encyclopedia will say the same.

The reason I give this issue short shrift is becase these are known forgeries. It's like claiming the Shroud is real, or a piece of the True Cross.

Here are a few other sources, quickly found :
www.nationmaster.com...
www.newadvent.org...
original.britannica.com...
www.gorgiaspress.com...


It's a 4th or 5th century forgery, sorry PSEUDOGRAPH.


Iasion

Just for Iasion

Ok so what do you make of all this ?

NEW TESTAMENT PAPYRI

www.kchanson.com...

reply to post by Simplynoone

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

source

I respect all those stars you have. But who asked you to be in charge of the research? I mean no disrespect. I am glad you looked into this matter and found an answer you could live with.

Personally I believe he was more than likely real. But I believe him to have been a prophet. Even though there is not one word, other than the Bible, written about him. King Herod was a pretty big dude (power wise) in his day. If he had knocked off the leader of a Jewish uprising, I bet he would have written something about him and would have notified Rome.

If you want to research something for me, find out if St. Nick is real. My mom said he wasn't. She also said the Easter Bunny was dead, but I saw him.

Originally posted by phineasJwhoopie


King Herod was a pretty big dude (power wise) in his day. If he had knocked off the leader of a Jewish uprising, I bet he would have written something about him and would have notified Rome.

Jewish Uprising?
are you seriously try to compare the early christians as something comparable to say: Bar Kokhba revolt
* A Jewish Uprsing*



en.wikipedia.org...

Herod in the gospel accoutn even mocks Jesus, and sees him as nothign special. Herod is actually dissapointed that Jesus wasnt somethign "big".

and from my quick research it seems we DONT have antyhing in writing from Herod Agrippa.

Your "bet" seems like a longshot.

Originally posted by mhc_70

You missed one small detail, the letter from Pilate to Claudius is listed in the appendix of the gospel of Nicodemus.

Often, forgers will attach authentic documents to the forgery in order to lend credibility to the forgery.

so you're saying because people "often" do this, it must therefore HAVE to be true for this pilate letter? the above quotes are directly addressing the actual letter, not just the acts.

the experts (all of them apparently) do not agree with you.

as predicted, you must not have followed the link.

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by mhc_70

You missed one small detail, the letter from Pilate to Claudius is listed in the appendix of the gospel of Nicodemus.

Often, forgers will attach authentic documents to the forgery in order to lend credibility to the forgery.

so you're saying because people "often" do this, it must therefore HAVE to be true for this pilate letter? the above quotes are directly addressing the actual letter, not just the acts.

the experts (all of them apparently) do not agree with you.

as predicted, you must not have followed the link.

I can only assume you are talking about links provided by Iasion? All of them are info on the book of Nicodemus and the Acts of Pilate and only one brings up the letter used in the appendix in the book of Nicodemus.

This is the only link provided by Iasion that discusses the letter in question...

An appended text purports to be a written report made by Pontius Pilate to Claudius, containing an anti-Semitic description of the crucifixion, as well as an account of the resurrection of Jesus; both are presented as if in an official report.

A very clear agenda can be gleaned from the use of verbage in this short reference to the letter, but does not call it a forgery.
nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Acts-of-Pilate.

I am wondering which link you claim I did not follow.

Of all the links in this thread with lists of known forgeries, this letter is not listed in any one of them, zero, not even the militant atheist Wheless could find enough evidence to make the absurd claim that this report from Pilate was a forgery. I know because I read them, I doubt you took the time to do the same

If you followed my Wiki link, it lists the letter under non-fiction.

There are manuscripts of this letter that are written in both Greek and Latin.

While I agree, the evidence is not 100% conclusive, this letter is the oldest known manuscript containing any texts by Pilate reffering to Jesus as the King of the Jews and is accepted as the most authentic of the reports of Pilate.

Johannes Quasten writes (Patrology, v. 1):

The tendency to minimize the guilt of Pilate which is found in the Gospel According to Peter shows the keen interest with which ancient Christianity regarded his person. The prominent position occupied by Pontius Pilate in early Christian thought is further evidenced by the Gospel of Nicodemus. Into this narrative have been incorporated the so-called Acts of Pilate, a supposed official report of the procurator concerning Jesus. Some Acts of Pilate, it seems, were known as early as the second century. Justin Martyr remarks in his first Apology (35) after he has mentioned the passion and crucifixion of Jesus: 'And that these things happened you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.' A similar statement occurs in chapter 48. Tertullian refers twice to a report made by Pilate to Tiberius. According to him, Pontius Pilate informed the Emperor of the unjust sentence of death which he had pronounced against an innocent and divine person; the Emperor was so moved by his report of the miracles of Christ and his resurrection, that he proposed the reception of Christ among the gods of Rome. But the Senate refused (Apologeticum 5). In another place Tertullian says that the 'whole story of Christ was reported to Caesar—at that time it was Tiberius—by Pilate, himself in his secret heart already a Christian' (Apol. 21, 24). We see here the tendency at work to use the Roman procurator as a witness for the history of the death and resurrection of Christ and the truth of Christianity.

Another copy of this letter was discovered in Liverpool, approx. 50 years ago...source

I have not been able to find the complete article, but it goes on to to describe why this letter is thought to be the most authentic text from Pilate regarding the crucifiction of Jesus.

I also find it interesting that you are the second one who questioned my research abilities, yet all the times I have stated the letter is listed as an appendix in the book of Nicodemus, neither of you thought to ask which book the appendix is directing you to. lol, Not sure about you, but that makes me seriously question the veracity of posts like yours.

Originally posted by phineasJwhoopie
I respect all those stars you have. But who asked you to be in charge of the research? I mean no disrespect. I am glad you looked into this matter and found an answer you could live with.

Personally I believe he was more than likely real. But I believe him to have been a prophet. Even though there is not one word, other than the Bible, written about him. King Herod was a pretty big dude (power wise) in his day. If he had knocked off the leader of a Jewish uprising, I bet he would have written something about him and would have notified Rome.

If you want to research something for me, find out if St. Nick is real. My mom said he wasn't. She also said the Easter Bunny was dead, but I saw him.

Hmm...

You PREACHED your faithful beliefs.
gave NO evidence for them,
and show no signs of ever doing any research yourself.

Then you attacked those who HAVE done the research !
Pathetic.

If you don't have any facts or argument,
go preach somewhere else.


Iasion

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by phineasJwhoopie
I respect all those stars you have. But who asked you to be in charge of the research? I mean no disrespect. I am glad you looked into this matter and found an answer you could live with.

Personally I believe he was more than likely real. But I believe him to have been a prophet. Even though there is not one word, other than the Bible, written about him. King Herod was a pretty big dude (power wise) in his day. If he had knocked off the leader of a Jewish uprising, I bet he would have written something about him and would have notified Rome.

If you want to research something for me, find out if St. Nick is real. My mom said he wasn't. She also said the Easter Bunny was dead, but I saw him.

Hmm...

You PREACHED your faithful beliefs.
gave NO evidence for them,
and show no signs of ever doing any research yourself.

Then you attacked those who HAVE done the research !
Pathetic.

If you don't have any facts or argument,
go preach somewhere else.


Iasion

Frustrated much?

How many threads 30 pages long have you read prior to giving an opinion?

[edit on 14-9-2008 by mhc_70]

Originally posted by mhc_70
Just for Iasion

every link you provided states its a known forgery. i don't understand your reasoning. click on the link "←Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius" (upper left of the page you link above) and on that page it says

This work is preserved in the Acts of Peter and Paul and in many versions of the Acts of Pilate. It is a forgery composed in the late second century.

besides the fact that it states "by Pseudonymous" clearly on that page, and not "by Pontius Pilate"

it might be the oldest, but it would still just be the oldest forgery.



[edit on 14-9-2008 by Convex]

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by mhc_70
Just for Iasion

every link you provided states its a known forgery. i don't understand your reasoning. click on the link "←Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius" (upper left of the page you link above) and on that page it says

This work is preserved in the Acts of Peter and Paul and in many versions of the Acts of Pilate. It is a forgery composed in the late second century.

besides the fact that it states "by Pseudonymous" clearly on that page, and not "by Pontius Pilate"

it might be the oldest, but it would still just be the oldest forgery.



[edit on 14-9-2008 by Convex]

I stand corrected, if you click the author it is listed under non-fiction, but I agree Wiki is calling the letter a forgery. I really should have known that was too good to be true

Regardless, we have 2 manuscripts in 2 languages dating to the second century That contain the letter and the translation is identical. The martyr Joseph speaks of the letter in 150 AD in apolegetics v.2 and 2000 years later the same letter is discovered in Liverpool, word for word verbatim. I guess I find that convincing when added to the equation.

Herodotus set out to write a history of the Persian Wars. He had few written records on which to rely in Greece, and in the Near East, where he had records, he is unlikely to have been able to use them; so he was forced to rely on oral tradition. Wherever he went Herodotus gathered accounts of historical events that had taken place from 50 to 150 years earlier; some had been passed down by word of mouth for several generations. Not very promising material, it would seem. Yet in the past century historians have scrutinized Herodotus with the help of archaeological evidence and rigorous historical criticism. We have collected enough evidence to be in a position to say that the material that Herodotus gathered from oral tradition was characterized by a high degree of accuracy. Herodotus dealt with oral traditions regarding famous battles, heroic deeds, and religious institutions-subjects that lend themselves easily to magnification and distortion. Yet the cases in which significant distortions have occurred are (as far as we can tell) few. Nor was Herodotus an objective, detached historian: he was passionately interested in his material, moralistic, and religious. Yet his attitudes did not seriously affect his concern for truth.9

Why then should the form-critics doubt the ability of the early church (a small and closelyknit community) to maintain an accurate recollection of the events of Jesus' life and teachings? The Gospel-writers had not to deal with material handed down orally for several generations, as did Herodotus, but with material transmitted through one generation. And can it really be imagined that Jesus' hearers, his very disciples, would seriously distort his message after his death? Rather it seems that they would he at pains to preserve an accurate account of his teachings. The powerful personality of Jesus impressed many, and some of his followers must have lived long enough to carry a vivid recollection of him till the end of the first century (just as there are some today who can recall vividly events in which they participated in the First World War or even the Boer War). It was in the second century that the myth-making began, and we can see elements of it in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works of that period. But the real personality of Jesus obviously made a strong impression on his followers, and this personality is apparent in the Gospels, which are by their very quality so easily distinguishable from the legendary material that grew up later.

source

The critics will go to such absurd lengths; they have effectively labeled every piece of literary evidence of Pontius Pilate, prior to 500AD, a forgery.

Flavius, Philo, the New Testament, and the New Testament Apocrypha, Thats all that we have of Pilate, did the man even exist?

Lookup Faith in the dictionary.......

And stop thinking your above us all seriously.

Originally posted by mhc_70

I stand corrected, if you click the author it is listed under non-fiction, but I agree Wiki is calling the letter a forgery. I really should have known that was too good to be true

i applaud your willingness to at least admit mistakes, too rare these days on forums.

its possible that the letter is based on some other letter that predates it - its possible pilate wrote a lot of stuff about jesus that was lost. but as it stands right now, we don't know anything about it. what we do have seems to be a consensus of forgery. i'm no judge on my own if it is or isn't, i'll leave that to the experts.

the OP, whose main point seems to be lost, is that there's no direct evidence of an historical jesus and this can't be used to refute that i'm afraid.

Originally posted by mhc_70

The powerful personality of Jesus impressed many, and some of his followers must have lived long enough to carry a vivid recollection of him till the end of the first century (just as there are some today who can recall vividly events in which they participated in the First World War or even the Boer War). It was in the second century that the myth-making began, and we can see elements of it in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works of that period. But the real personality of Jesus obviously made a strong impression on his followers, and this personality is apparent in the Gospels, which are by their very quality so easily distinguishable from the legendary material that grew up later.

its an interesting argument, but the same one could be made for any pseudo-historical figure - king arthur, count dracula, santa clause, sherlock holmes, james bond, etc. its only because of modern science that we're pretty sure the latter 2 don't exist.

and alexander (name checked in the essay you quoted), we have some (even if only a little) contemporary evidence of his existance.

what makes socrates (also name checked) different is that he didn't have super powers. so whether he existed or someone created his side of the arguments out of thin air, wouldn't matter. the person who wrote it IS socrates in that case. but you can't say the same about jesus, can you? you can't believe that mark (for example) created what jesus said, came up with his philosophy. that mark IS jesus.

if you truly followed what jesus taught it wouldn't matter to you.