These posts about whether Jesus existed or not never cease to amaze me.

I ASK YOU......

Why are the most powerful people on the planet worshiping SATAN????
I am not talking about a group of teenagers in someones basement in the middle of Ohio, BUT the MOST powerful, influential people on the planet that control all the money and every aspect of your life.
It's Right in plain sight for anyone with eyes to see..It's in their governmental buildings, monuments, their statues (why do you think they call it the pentagon?) It's on our money in our music, movies and television programs. They have infiltrated and destroyed the credibility of most of the churches and made them a pedophile haven. They pay these goofy televangelist on TV to make a mockery of Christianity and spread ridiculous internet claims that Jesus is really the Sun God Ra.

THEY sit and LAUGH RIGHT IN YOUR FACE and write books about how ignorant all of you are.....but instead of investigating them you run around like imbeciles asking whether Jesus or the New Testament is true. You want proof???????

Bohemian Grove is available on youtube or google video for free for anyone to watch... Once a year Presidents, Corporate Elitists, Politicians and the most Powerful people perform a cremation of Care ritual (a sacrifice of a life) to Moloch the OWl..BAAL...SATAN! Just as the days of Babylon.
It's on video for all to see!
DO you think they just are having a weekend of harmless fun?... or... could it be that's why they own a whole planet of 6 billion ignorant earth bound IDIOTS?? Keep playing with your blackberries, ipods, video games and posting these ridiculous questions about Jesus, because their Satanic plan is right on schedule.

HEY!!! Its 2009 right??? What do you think our calendar is based on???
2009 years since the birth of a fictitious character???? COME ON!
You Just keep asking why these nutty brainwashed Christians can be Soooo Stupid to believe in Jesus..and why we just can't see it is really the sun God Ra.
I never read any stories showing the Sun God Ra is against the oppressor Satan. Do you have ancient texts that can prove that relationship??? If you have maybe you could enlighten me.

Guess what people??? If Satan exists so does JESUS!
Wake up! and do some investigating!
They laugh at you... and the Christians pity you...So keep mocking the word of Christ...
Cause the END is almost here..
The Bible say's the generation that see's the birth of Israel will not perish until all is fulfilled. 1948 +70=
The bible predicts the rise of the Whore of Babylon and the increase of unbelievers in the last Days!
I am sure most of you unbelievers will be here to see the end unless you repent and confess that Jesus Christ paid the ransom for your soul!




















































[edit on 28-6-2009 by Wideawake08]

Gday

Originally posted by randyvs
Cornelius Tacitus

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


K.

I know the Man. I know the God. I know the Father & I know the Spirit. Some things you just have to experience in person. Don't be like Saul/Paul and have to be bitch slapped (ha ha) at the end. It doesn't look to be long now.

Gday,

Originally posted by tinfoilman
That's a bit misleading in my opinion. Of course there is no record of Pilate executing Jesus. There's no record of Pilate executing anyone. For that matter there are no specific records of who got executed.

Yah.

While there are no 'records' formally,
it is quite surprising that Philo does not mention Jesus.
Nor did Justus of Tiberias mention Jesus (he wrote a history of Jewish leaders in the 1st century, but didn't mention Jesus.)

I take the view Jesus was a complete myth.


K.

Gday.

Originally posted by Wideawake08
So apparently for over 2009 years Our yearly calender is based on a fictitious person.

It's almost JUNE - named after Juno.
So, do you believe Juno existed?

What about day names - e.g. Thursday is Thor's day.
So, do you believe Thor existed?

Of course not -
basing days, months, or year numbers on some story or myth does NOT prove anything at all.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by tinfoilman
That's a bit misleading in my opinion. Of course there is no record of Pilate executing Jesus. There's no record of Pilate executing anyone. For that matter there are no specific records of who got executed.

Yah.

While there are no 'records' formally,
it is quite surprising that Philo does not mention Jesus.
Nor did Justus of Tiberias mention Jesus (he wrote a history of Jewish leaders in the 1st century, but didn't mention Jesus.)

I take the view Jesus was a complete myth.


K.

It's hard to believe they didn't say anything about him, but it's also hard to use the logic to say for sure. Even if he was real not everyone would have written about him.

The point that nobody outside of the Bible wrote about Jesus may be a valid argument, but to pick any one writer such as Philo or Justus just doesn't help because maybe they just didn't like the guy. Who knows?

We could say, look at all the people that did write about him such as the almost 25,000 manuscripts we have that are written by different authors at different times that referenced Jesus. Some of them date to the 2nd century and even the 1st depending on the debate at hand.

But every time you bring those up people say well those are religious texts so they don't count. Well, Philo was a Jewish philosopher and wrote religious texts right? Anyway, of course they're religious texts. They talk about Jesus. Any kind of ancient document that mentioned Jesus would automatically be called a religious text would it not? Remember the New Testament is simply a telling of what happened. That's the style it's written in.

So, according to that logic any ancient text I could find that mentioned Jesus would instantly be considered a religious text and discounted? No wonder I don't have documentation! lol.

After all most of the original source manuscripts of the ancient writings from people like Philo, Pliny, Plato, and even Homer are completing missing. They've been reconstructed from fragments and copies just like the New Testament has. To question the Gospel's authenticity means you also have to question the authenticity of all the ancient documents.

If we look at Plato's complete writings for example there are as few as only 7 manuscript copies, the earliest of which we can find may date to 1,200 years after it was supposed to be written, but we don't debate if that was authentic or not.

But that doesn't really prove anything either. But if we're going to question the historical authenticity of 25,000 cross referenced manuscripts that possibly date back to the 1st century that tell the story of what happened, then we have to question all the historical documentation. Such as did Pliny the elder really exist since the earliest material we have from him doesn't show up until 750 years later?

The point is I think a lot of people forget the Bible wasn't put together until much later. It's a collection of cross referenced manuscripts by different authors at different times that we have close to 25,000 copies of. To say there's no evidence outside the Bible is a little misleading. First, we collected it up and put it in the Bible later. Second, that's like saying I took your Philo and Justus and Pliny and Plato and I put all their work into a collection and called it the Bible2. Then I said, okay there's no proof outside the Bible2 that these guys existed. Well of course not, I just put all their stuff in one book.

If we look at Justus he was more likely born after Jesus died and Philo was a Jewish philosopher. Perhaps we wasn't too concerned with a Jewish heretic who was considered a criminal by the Jewish people and crucified. And we still have no idea how much of their material is still missing.

For many of them we have less than 10 damaged copies of their works where as the Bible we have close to 25,000 ancient copies. Some full and some partial. In ancient literature before 400 AD the Bible is actually referenced and quoted so much that the New Testament can be up to 99% reconstructed without the sources. Simply by looking at the other literature that quotes from it.

What's more telling I think though is all those people writing about the story of Jesus so much so that we have almost 25,000 manuscripts. If Jesus was not real why didn't the historians write about that? When the Christians were being put to death for their beliefs in the thousands why did most if not all the historians just forget to mention he was fake? That's the real question in my opinion.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

Gday,

Originally posted by tinfoilman
The point that nobody outside of the Bible wrote about Jesus may be a valid argument, but to pick any one writer such as Philo or Justus just doesn't help because maybe they just didn't like the guy. Who knows?

Philo wrote at length on the Jews - their history, beliefs, sects and leaders; he wrote about the Logos too (Jesus was called the Logos.) Philo lived in the very time and regio of Jesus, and would certainly have mentioned him if he had been a Jewish leader/preacher whatever...

Justus of Tiberias was from Galilee - the same tiny area as Jesus, and he wrote a book about Jewish leaders in the late 1st century. He would certainly have written about Jesus if he had been any sort of real leader.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
We could say, look at all the people that did write about him such as the almost 25,000 manuscripts we have that are written by different authors at different times that referenced Jesus.

Nonsense.
These are merely later COPIES mostly from many CENTURIES later.

You have confused two fundamentally different issues - that because we have so many copies this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not true - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -

* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?

* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Some of them date to the 2nd century and even the 1st depending on the debate at hand.

None date to 1st century.
A few tiny scraps date to 2nd century.
The earliest large MSS are from c.200CE.

There are only about 5000 Greek MSS in total.
Your figure 25000 includes all the late Latin MSS from many centuries later.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
But every time you bring those up people say well those are religious texts so they don't count.

It's not black and white.
All documents 'count'
But some are less relaibel than others.

Why don't you believe the Hindu scriptures?
Why don't you believe the Scientology books?

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Remember the New Testament is simply a telling of what happened. That's the style it's written in.

Style means nothing.
The NT is not history at all - it is full of magic and impossible events and historical blunders...

Originally posted by tinfoilman
So, according to that logic any ancient text I could find that mentioned Jesus would instantly be considered a religious text and discounted? No wonder I don't have documentation! lol.

But no one ever said that logic.
You just made it up.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
After all most of the original source manuscripts of the ancient writings from people like Philo, Pliny, Plato, and even Homer are completing missing. They've been reconstructed from fragments and copies just like the New Testament has. To question the Gospel's authenticity means you also have to question the authenticity of all the ancient documents.

We DO question the authenticity of ALL ancient documents.
Some are more reliable than others.
The NT is not very reliable.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Such as did Pliny the elder really exist since the earliest material we have from him doesn't show up until 750 years later?

The age of MSS has nothing to do with the truth of the contents.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
The point is I think a lot of people forget the Bible wasn't put together until much later.

No-onre forgets that.
Stop treating your readers like idiots please.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
It's a collection of cross referenced manuscripts by different authors at different times that we have close to 25,000 copies of.

It's a collection of legends and myths - just like the Greek myths which 'cross-reference' each other.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
To say there's no evidence outside the Bible is a little misleading.

It's completely true and relevant.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
First, we collected it up and put it in the Bible later.

So what?
The truth of ancient books has NOTHING to do with whether they are collected into larger collections or not - what matters is whether their claims stand up to scrutiny.

The NT does not.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by tinfoilman
And we still have no idea how much of their material is still missing.

Riiiiight.
There is evidence - we just haven't found it yet.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
For many of them we have less than 10 damaged copies of their works where as the Bible we have close to 25,000 ancient copies.

So what?
Why on earth do you think this proves ANYTHING?

We have millions of copies of the Book of Mormon copied from the actual original author - does that make it more true than the NT?

No?

Then why pretend that 25000 COPIES of the NT proves anything?

Originally posted by tinfoilman
In ancient literature before 400 AD the Bible is actually referenced and quoted so much that the New Testament can be up to 99% reconstructed without the sources. Simply by looking at the other literature that quotes from it.

No it can't.

Have you tried?
Have you ever seen anyone try?

I have.

It is NOT 99% at all - this is just a little story that believers love to tell each other.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
If Jesus was not real why didn't the historians write about that? When the Christians were being put to death for their beliefs in the thousands why did most if not all the historians just forget to mention he was fake? That's the real question in my opinion.

Why didn't the ancients mention Hercules was fake?
Or Aesculapius? Or Persephone? Or Dionysus? Or Apollo?
Hmm?

Because back then, when people believed this stuff - NO-ONE EVER said ANY God didn't exist - they just never ever did that.

That's why.

But -
what we DO see is all sorts of attacks on Christianity - including authors who specifically claimed the Gospels were FICTIOn based on MYTHS (Celsus.) Others claimed Jesus was a PHANTOM who never came in the flesh.

Sceptics of the day attacked Christian beliefs in every way they knew how.



Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Well you really went off, but I think you missed my point.

I accurately answered all your points.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
First of all, Jesus wasn't a leader. He was a crucified criminal. I just want to get that out. In Jesus's time he would not have been put in a book of Jewish leaders.

Oh please !
Jesus was the leader and founder of the early Christians.
Now you pretend he weasn't a leader?
What nonsense.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
But I think you missed m point. I'm not saying having more copies of the Bible proves it's right. In fact I never submitted any evidence at all.

You kept pointing out (over and over) the number of copies as if that made it true.
It doesn't.
Now you seem to be backing away from that claim.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
This is a hypothetical conversation. I said right in my post that what I was posting doesn't prove anything as it is not evidence. Did you miss that line?

What on earth is your point ?
That you have no point?

Originally posted by tinfoilman
What I'm saying is the books of the Bible were written by different people at different times and they all confirm and sourced each other.

Why on earth do you think books written at different times by different people should be considered true?

What matters is whether their contents ARE true - whether they stand up to scrutiny - not whether they were 'written by different people at different times'.

The Greek myths were 'written by different people at different times'.
The Hindu scriptures were 'written by different people at different times'.
etc.

So what?

Confirm and source each other?
So do all scripture collections.

The Greek myths 'confirm and source each other'.
The Hindu scriptures 'confirm and source each other'.
So what?

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Why do they then not count as historical documents?

They ARE 'historical documents' - documents from ancient history.
You seem to be playing word games and pretending this makes them accurate books of ancient history. It does not.

All ancient books are evaluated and checked.
The NT is evaluated and checked.
It is not good history.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
True, Philo may have lived in the same area at the same time and not written about Jesus. However, other people that did live in the same time and same area as Jesus did write about Jesus.

No they didn't.
Which is why you didn't quote any.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
So you would also have to answer the question the other way. If Jesus was not real why did people write about him? My question is just as valid.

If Hercules was not real, why did people write about him?
If Apollo was not real, why did people write about him?
If Bacchus was not real, why did people write about him?
If Osiris was not real, why did people write about him?

Do you really think that only REAL people get written about?
Did you not know that some books are not true?

Originally posted by tinfoilman
As for the documents that claim Jesus was a myth, what evidence do you have that they are in fact correct that Jesus was not real?

Well, we have NO evidence for Jesus.
But we have evidence his story was considered a lie, fiction, myths.
It's pretty clear.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Also, I wanted to state that it's a myth that the manuscripts are merely copies of each other.

25000 MSS you said - do you believe there are 25000 different books?
Hmmm?

What nonsense - those 25000 MSS you mentioned over and over are COPIES of the Gospels mostly - didn't you know that?

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Remember the Bible was written by many authors. It wasn't just one author, but I think many people forget that.

FFS !
No-one forgets that.
Stop treating your readers like idiots.
The Greek myths were written by many people - so what?

NOT ONE of the NT books contains any claim to have met Jesus.
Not one !

So it does not matter how many books written ABOUT Jesus - CLAIMS about Jesus - BELIEFS about Jesus.

Not one single person, Christian or other, ever claimed to have met a historical Jesus (not counting the forged 2 Peter.)

Paul had a vision of Jesus.
Others wrote books about him.
No-one ever claimed themselves to have MET Jesus personally.


Kapyong


[edit on 29-6-2009 by Kapyong]