It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Evidence For Jesus' Existence is Overwhelming

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
I can't think of anyone more desireable to imitate.


I can't think of anything more boring.




posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Boywonder13
 



it gives some beliefs of SOME christians in the second century but even then it gives limited beliefs

died on a cross, live forever, this is along way away from the jesus christ we have today

christians believed jesus was a spirit only, a man prophet, a man-god and a god in human shape. many of these at exactly the same time

they hadnt even decided by the 4th century when exactly he was born and died, your jesus born 25 dec 0000 and died in his 33rd year

by the forth century the examples below show he was born before 73 BC and died sometime upto 117AD and died when he was 50 or older

and these are saints bishops and the father of church history

for years january 6th was when jesus birthday was celebrated but it got changed to the 25TH to hijack the solstice

***
"Jesus still alive in the reign of Trajan" – said 2nd century bishop Irenaeus. [Trajan 98-117 AD]

***
"Jesus born before Herod the Great" – said 4th century bishop Epiphanius. [Herod 73-4 BC]

***
"Book 1, Chapter 12 - Meaning of the Name Christian.
First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible ... And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? ... Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God." -Theophilus bishop of Antioch secind century (what no jesus?)

******
"The Thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in his 30th year: He did NOT suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS OLD WHEN HE DIED."
– Against Heresies, II, 22.

"From the 40th and 50th year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan."[trajan 98AD-117AD]

both by Saint Irenaeus (Greek: Ειρηναίος), (2nd century AD - c. 202 AD) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul

***
"What we now call the Christian religion existed amongst the ancients, and was from the beginning of the human race, until Christ Himself came in the flesh; from which time the already existing true religion began to be styled Christian".

– St. Augustine (354-430)
(Retract., I, xiii, 3)

***
"If anyone happened to come who had actually been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire about the sayings of the Elders ...

For I thought that things from books did not benefit me as much as the sayings of a living and abiding voice...

The Elder also used to say this:

Mark had been the interpreter for Peter. And he wrote down as much as Peter told of the sayings and deeds of Christ – accurately, but not in order.

For he was not a hearer or follower of the Lord but, as I said, of Peter, who adapted his teaching as needed and did not arrange the sayings of the Lord in an orderly manner.

So, then, Matthew compiled the Sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language. But everyone interpreted them as he could."

– Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.) bishop of Caesarea Palaestina (c 263 – 339)

mark wasnt a disciple (?) but followed peter(also called simon and was a disciple) around, peter didnt give any order to his teachings of jesus and adapted them as needed.

it then fell to matthew to write it down properly but it was then interpreted differently by many

wait wait the gospel of mark is really the gospel of peter and so is the gospel of peter

and this from Eusebius


He is often referred to as the Father of Church History because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church


[edit on 13/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Boywonder13
 



it gives some beliefs of SOME christians in the second century but even then it gives limited beliefs

died on a cross, live forever, this is along way away from the jesus christ we have today



Different? How so. Its a belief of almost eevry christian that Jesus died on the cross, so that we could live forever in heaven. Thats basic christianity.




christians believed jesus was a spirit only, a man prophet, a man-god and a god in human shape. many of these at exactly the same time

they hadnt even decided by the 4th century when exactly he was born and died, your jesus born 25 dec 0000 and died in his 33rd year




No, Jesus was NOT born on December 25th, sometime in spring or summer. scholas agree. and he was born around 8 - 4 BCE.
The thing is Jesus is rooted within the First Century.




by the forth century the examples below show he was born and died some time between 73 BC - 117AD and died when he was 50

and these are saints bishops and the farther of church history

for years january 6th was when jesus birthday was celebrated but it got changed to the 25TH to hijack the solstice

***
"Jesus still alive in the reign of Trajan" – said 2nd century bishop Irenaeus. [Trajan 98-117 AD]

***
"Jesus born before Herod the Great" – said 4th century bishop Epiphanius. [Herod 73-4 BC]

***
"Book 1, Chapter 12 - Meaning of the Name Christian.
First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible ... And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? ... Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God." -Theophilus bishop of Antioch secind century (what no jesus?)





How do church fathers have any more reliability over the Letters of Paul, and the Gospels which place Jesus death to the 30s CE. Paul's letters being written between 48-68 CE. All have Jesus dead already. so do the Gospels written between 65-100 CE.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by Boywonder13]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 

Didn't we do this bit allready With the OP involved in the other post ?

So we're off for a stoll our destination the beach, the shortest route being a straight line, we hit a bog take slight detour then get back on track.

Why do people like the OP insist on staying in the bog ? When we show them the bog they refuse to see it then they jump in it then they refuse to see it. When we drag them out of the bog they try to take us to another path with another bog.

WTF is wrong with these people? We've got the post Jesus is hearsay which has been running for about a week, with the OP putting in his pennies worth of proof (or lack of) now he wants to start all over again on the same subject with a different title.

Get a life OP, do we spend the next week or so with Noobfon and myself copy and pasting from the other post, followed with Noturtypical and et al, on their pulpits preaching bible verses?

For funks sake is this not typical of a christian recruitement week? keep knocking doors till you find an ignoramus and his friends to join the gang.

This thread has got to be the biggest waste of electrons this week, I dont lose my rag often but this, this takes the biscuit !



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13

Different? How so. Its a belief of almost eevry christian that Jesus died on the cross, so that we could live forever in heaven. Thats basic christianity.


No, Jesus was NOT born on December 25th, sometime in spring or summer. scholas agree. and he was born around 8 - 4 BCE.
The thing is Jesus is rooted within the First Century.

How do church fathers have any more reliability over the Letters of Paul, and the Gospels which place Jesus death to the 30s CE. Paul's letters being written between 48-68 CE. All have Jesus dead already. so do the Gospels written between 65-100 CE.


[edit on 13-9-2008 by Boywonder13]


belief of every christian now, many believed he was a spirit a holy vision nothing more



On Paul's 'Epistles'

"These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth.

They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth').

They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence.

They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution.

They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master …

These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many ...

Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher ... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered. "

– G. A. Wells
yes paul is such a good source. 85% of every mention of apostle is to him self. all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination, basically he used myths he knew and a little jesus story and helped forge a religeon with them


how do they the fathers of the church have more authority......... your absolutley right they shouldnt, but how is it we known exactly what the apostles knew. but they didnt know most of it only 100-300 years after the event

does seem a little odd the leaders of the christian church didnt know the christian faith ..... well not the version we and the disciples knew



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by realshanti
 


What "Christianity" am I referring to?

Don't give me that...In Christianity, they teach that you should not question the teachings, or their God. I'm not talking about what is, or what is not in the Bible. I'm talking about what is taught to you as part of the religion. Yes, people question it...but it is taught that you should not, especially if it's something said by God directly in the Bible.

So, don't give me that.

In regards to Buddhism, I know there is some debate with some of it's teachings, but, unlike Christianity, they teach and encourage you to question all things...whether it is of Buddha, or not...and that alone is what I was talking about...not who is built, or not built for enlightenment.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


Every mention of the word Jesus occures 70 years after his "death"
Not one single historical reference while he was alive dispite the "multiudes" who followed him.
besides.....If Jesus was the messiah....where is he now? And why didn't he leave a lasting written evidence.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Bombeni
 


Every mention of the word Jesus occures 70 years after his "death"
Not one single historical reference while he was alive dispite the "multiudes" who followed him.
besides.....If Jesus was the messiah....where is he now? And why didn't he leave a lasting written evidence.



70? Well thats just not true.

Despite the "mutlitudes" as in jews who most likely could not write....and if you didnt know he was a marginal Jew, what did he do that a roman historican should have take note of? Miracles? unless the historian saw them...Jesus was crucified. he was a criminal at one of the lowest social orders.

You know of the Pauline Epistles? All of them are agreed to have been written between c.48-68.

im not argue over Jesus historicity, im just debunking what you thought.

"The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. " - Will Durant, Humanist, Historian, Philosopher, Non-Christian.




posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by Boywonder13

Different? How so. Its a belief of almost eevry christian that Jesus died on the cross, so that we could live forever in heaven. Thats basic christianity.


No, Jesus was NOT born on December 25th, sometime in spring or summer. scholas agree. and he was born around 8 - 4 BCE.
The thing is Jesus is rooted within the First Century.

How do church fathers have any more reliability over the Letters of Paul, and the Gospels which place Jesus death to the 30s CE. Paul's letters being written between 48-68 CE. All have Jesus dead already. so do the Gospels written between 65-100 CE.


[edit on 13-9-2008 by Boywonder13]


belief of every christian now, many believed he was a spirit a holy vision nothing more



On Paul's 'Epistles'

"These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth.

They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth').

They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence.

They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution.

They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master …

These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many ...

Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher ... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered. "

– G. A. Wells
yes paul is such a good source. 85% of every mention of apostle is to him self. all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination, basically he used myths he knew and a little jesus story and helped forge a religeon with them


how do they the fathers of the church have more authority......... your absolutley right they shouldnt, but how is it we known exactly what the apostles knew. but they didnt know most of it only 100-300 years after the event

does seem a little odd the leaders of the christian church didnt know the christian faith ..... well not the version we and the disciples knew




I think its obvious paul was not writign a biography about the life of Jesus. But he wasnt silent about the life of Jesus:

Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galations 4:4)
Jesus was referred to as "Son of God". (1 Cor. 1:9)
Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galations 4:6)
Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (1 Cor. 9:14)
Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
Jesus had a brother named James. (Galations 1:19)
Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)


The whole Iraenus Qoute thign is explained here:
www.tektonics.org...



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I still cant comprehend why people consider the bible as evidence for jesus existence & how the world came to be. It really frightens me how easily people can be manipulated. Do you think in 2000 years time they will find a book on santa claus and start worshipping him?

God isn't real, but this can't be proven or disproven



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

Copied from No beliefs.com

(Real late edit)

Ive only just seen the ATS plagiarism guide and I believe this post of mine is a bit too long and minus EXs etc.. but Ive done it now
I had already stated 'copied from so and so' at least, never changed any of it and provided the link. Hope that is ok.. next time I know better.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Observer_X]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Briles
I still cant comprehend why people consider the bible as evidence for jesus existence


"But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence..."- Atheist historian, Sir Micheal Grant in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer_X
NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

[/url]



It's funny cuz all the bios we have of Alexander The Great come from people writings centuries later.

www.livius.org...




1) As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?

2) Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.

3) Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?

4) Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.

5) Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples

6) Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!



www.tektonics.org...



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
"Thus our prime sources about the life of Jesus were written within about fifty years of his death by people who perhaps knew him, but certainly by people who knew people who knew him. If this is beginning to sound slightly second hand, we may wish to consider two points. First... most ancient and medieval history was written from a much greater distance. Second, all the Gospel writers could have talked to people who were actually on the spot, and while perhaps not eyewitnesses themselves, their position is certainly the next best thing." - Jo Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding, Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History Houghton Mifflin Company 2004, pp. 44-45



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Boywonder13
 


Food for thought thank you. Im just putting info on the table as I research. Im not really here or there or closed on my opinion but I do lean towards the bible being mixed up with older myths and not 100% true on Jesus. I think if top scholars havnt been able to prove it then us mere mortals arent likely to come up with anything more so we all go round in circles, really we should all learn to agree to disagree.

Why is the subject of proving bible history called 'apologetics' anyway? I guess because nobody can prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt and debates may often end in 'Im sorry I dont truly know either'



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
The thing is, there is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus existed. There is evidence that a man who would later be turned into jesus by historians lived, but none that the man jesus, as christians believe in him, existed.

A large number of historians now agree that the man labeled jesus was actually an egyptian pharoah. Others think he was a mythical being, nothing more. Some think he was a metaphor.

But I defy you, show me one piece of hard evidence that the christian "jesus" lived.


Oh, oh, A large number" huh? Source please?


I too would like to see this overwhelming evidence that a man NAMED Jesus Christ existed.
Tell us, Who wrote the New Testament and the stories of the man?



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
jesus's so called "miracles" had already been performed by other deitys or holy men in much older religions.
maybe he was the worlds greatest illusionist...respect



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


uh, no. haMashiach's royal bloodline came through his mother, not Yoseph.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13
"Thus our prime sources about the life of Jesus were written within about fifty years of his death by people who perhaps knew him, but certainly by people who knew people who knew him. If this is beginning to sound slightly second hand, we may wish to consider two points. First... most ancient and medieval history was written from a much greater distance. Second, all the Gospel writers could have talked to people who were actually on the spot, and while perhaps not eyewitnesses themselves, their position is certainly the next best thing." - Jo Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding, Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History Houghton Mifflin Company 2004, pp. 44-45

But all we are asking for is a source besides the new testament - perhaps even the old testament, since the all-knowing god would have mentioned that we should expect this person and tell us how to identify him?? (as he does with other prophecies) We would like a source other than this group of writings that were designed to make people believe them. Someone here mentioned that the eyewitnesses may not have been able to write... well I think your miracle worker could have helped them out a little bit. Wouldn't god have foreseen that we would have this conversation and many others like it and, I don't know, tell his son to keep a diary or scrapbook of some kind?

Also, like observer_x has pointed out, the bible has been thought to have developed from other creation stories. Some examples: Enuma Elish, the story of the flood is in many different myths and creation stories dated before the bible. The idea that a being could be partially divine is in there too - Gilgamesh I think is the first, Hercules, Achilles, the Pandavas...

All the supporters are doing is trying to prove the authenticity of the NT, but I would rather see other sources. This is an endless topic and no one is going to win. I don't care what you believe, as you should not care what I believe. But when the OP posts something like this, people need to be open to discussion, not stubborn and refusing to listen to others. That is ignorance and it goes against what this site is meant for - or so I thought...

Also, someone mentions that if a person has questions that they need only refer to the bible for their answers because they probably haven't read it. This is wrong in my case... it was when I was reading the bible that I began to have such questions.... Not only about Jesus, but about other things as well. As I, and others, have said, a questioning Christian is looked down upon. You are not supposed to question the bible and its teachings - but have faith in the things that you cannot see or get answers to!



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by justxxme

But all we are asking for is a source besides the new testament - perhaps even the old testament, since the all-knowing god would have mentioned that we should expect this person and tell us how to identify him??


Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (New International Reader's Version)


The Lord says, "My servant will act wisely and accomplish his task.
He will be highly honored. He will be greatly respected.
14 Many people were shocked when they saw him.
He was so scarred that he did not look like a man at all.
His body was so twisted that he did not look like a human being anymore.
15 But many nations will be surprised when they see what he has done.
Kings will be so amazed that they will not be able to say anything.
They will understand things they were never told about.
They will know the meaning of things they never heard about."
Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed what we've been saying?
Who has seen the Lord's saving power?
2 His servant grew up like a tender young plant.
He grew like a root coming up out of dry ground.
He didn't have any beauty or majesty that made us notice him.
There wasn't anything special about the way he looked that drew us to him.
3 Men looked down on him. They didn't accept him.
He knew all about sorrow and suffering.
He was like someone people turn their faces away from.
We looked down on him. We didn't have any respect for him.
4 He suffered the things we should have suffered.
He took on himself the pain that should have been ours.
But we thought God was punishing him.
We thought God was wounding him and making him suffer.
5 But the servant was pierced because we had sinned.
He was crushed because we had done what was evil.
He was punished to make us whole again.
His wounds have healed us.
6 All of us are like sheep. We have wandered away from God.
All of us have turned to our own way.
And the Lord has placed on his servant
the sins of all of us.
7 He was beaten down and made to suffer.
But he didn't open his mouth.
He was led away like a sheep to be killed.
Lambs are silent while their wool is being cut off.
In the same way, he didn't open his mouth.
8 He was arrested and sentenced to death.
Then he was taken away.
He was cut off from this life.
He was punished for the sins of my people.
Who among those who were living at that time
could have understood those things?
9 He was given a grave with those who were evil.
But his body was buried in the tomb of a rich man.
He was killed even though he hadn't harmed anyone.
And he had never lied to anyone.
10 The Lord says, "It was my plan to crush him
and cause him to suffer.
I made his life a guilt offering to pay for sin.
But he will see all of his children after him.
In fact, he will continue to live.
My plan will be brought about through him.
11 After he suffers, he will see the light that leads to life.
And he will be satisfied.
My godly servant will make many people godly
because of what he will accomplish.
He will be punished for their sins.
12 So I will give him a place of honor among those who are great.
He will be rewarded just like others who win the battle.
That is because he was willing to give his life as a sacrifice.
He was counted among those who had committed crimes.
He took the sins of many people on himself.
And he gave his life for those who had done what is wrong."

www.biblegateway.com...:13-53:12&vers ion=76

That kinda sounds like Jesus, doesnt it?




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join