Did Jesus actually walk this earth? Did he actually exist?

reply to post by Kapyong

---

Why are you so angry? We're just talking right? I mean I'm not backing away from my "evidence". I never gave you any. I said right in my post "But that doesn't really prove anything either".

Okay well I won't submit any documents or evidence. It's no big deal. It's not like I'll convince you anyway. I'll agree that none of the manuscripts are evidence and that all the ancient texts are unreliable heresy unless it proves your point and not mine.

That sounds pretty fair right? We can still chat then right? I'll even admit Jesus was the greatest Jewish leader of all time. I'm just saying with the crucifixion thing being the most important part of Jesus's hoax if you will, the stories probably didn't get popular until after he was already gone is what I'm saying.

Anyway, let's look at the other religions. The people of different times all had their religions and they also had their historians. So, your question of why did they believe in Hercules or the Flood or Greek Mythology or the Sun God Ra or whatever religion is a good one.

It's actually a very good question. Why did they believe in that stuff and why didn't their historians point out the hoaxes more often? Why were the religious people willing to die for their beliefs, but the historians just kind of let them go to their deaths?

Why do we have more religious texts than historical texts? Did the historians believe in all those crazy religions too? Or did they just let the believers fly off to their death fighting for their beliefs while the whole time the historians knew it was all a hoax? If so then why? Which is really just an interesting question of human psychology.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by helen670

---

What's the issues? We're just having a chat. I believe in the Bible, but I'm just chatting with the replier. What's the specific issue here? Sorry I'm confused. I personally think there is evidence, but no point in discussing that with someone that doesn't believe in it.

The evidence that is.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by tinfoilman

---

Hi tin /

Evidence?

Okay,
If we were to ONLY look at evidence presented to us by those who falsified History on purpose, what do we get?
Do we get the truth?
Of-course NOT!
We only get the History as to that what is written in them?
Books uopn books have been written about the existence of Jesus Christ, His Apostles and where they traveled and where they taught, and how they died....somehow the ENGLISH language seems to HAVE LEFT ALL OF THIS OUT, mind you, on purpose!
Why would they do such a thing?
Thats the question many should be asking today!
Not whether or not God exists...Of course He does!
The WINDS exist..we cannot see it, but we can feel it and therefore it must be there-it obviously exists!!!

Sorry I may be thinking ahead and writing too quickly...
Heres my thing,

What is the importance of knowing HISTORY?
Is it relevant to know History and to know God?
Well, I guess that depends on ones way of thinking,
One person may have enough Faith to just Believe in God,
While anothers faith depends on knowing God through Histroy!
If therefore History has been somehow manipulated, then HOW can someone begin to understand of the existence of God..
Am I making things clear?
Sorry....am i making sense?
Look, I believe in God because I do..call it faith or a feeling in my soul,I do Believe in God.
I dont seek History to prove to myself that God exists, I simply do.
Others, need texts,books,scrolls etc....getting my drift?
If school teaches us that we are MONKEYS...HOW then does that not distort truth?
It does!
Another thing....History is relevant to knowing what ahs happened and why?
True?
If History books have been messed with slightly altering facts with fiction, then how does truth come out sounding?
Ok, im going to stop here, and see if you have understood anything I have said,
take care,
ICXC NIKA
helen

reply to post by helen670

---

I agree with what you're saying. The debate is just getting heated so we'll let it go for later I suppose.

reply to post by helen670

---

unfortunately Helen, saints are usually men of renown from Pre-christianity.
It just like the sites that the first cathedrals of Europe were built on, Ancient Pagan Sites.
The church could not deter the pagan religions fromworshipping in a particular location; the church would destroy and burn the site to the ground. But, the pagans still came to worship.
The first pope is quoted as saying " we will then build a church there. We will have them just where we want them".

The same too with saints. If the church could not deter veneration of a particuler figure or deity, it would eventually canonise it.
Saint Ozwald = the norse God ODIN.

Gday,



Not angry.
Just critical of your claims.




Then why post?




Hmmm - before, you said Jesus was NOT a leader?




Hoax?
What hoax?
No-one here said anything about a hoax.




Same reason people believe in Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster etc.




Hoaxes?
WHAT hoaxes?
Ancient religion weren't hoaxes - people BELIEVED them.

This strange view is all too common in apologists - the bizarre idea that stories MUST either be :
* true history
or
* a HOAX

Well, that's simply not correct - there was NO hoax.
I said nothing about a hoax.




Because the people you call 'historians' were just people who also believed.




Yes.
Mostly they did.
However, some sceptics criticised various beliefs.
But no ancient writer ever claimed these beings were not real.




It was NOT a hoax!
There was NO hoax - please tell me you'll stop making claims about HOAXES.

These were accepted beliefs - people BELEIVED them.
Including many people YOU call 'historians'.

But sometimes people and 'historians' did criticise other's beliefs - such as the sceptics who called Christian beliefs 'myths' and 'lies' and 'fiction'.

But the idea that these god-men did not even exist - NEVER occurred to anyone back then. Not once.

It is simply NOT correct to think there was a body of 'historians' who knew the truth, but kept it from the people - NOTHING like that happened at all.


K.

Gday,




Your evidence and faith is so weak, you don't want to even discuss it with a sceptic ?


K.

Gday,



Sure, we have many books ABOUT Jesus -
CLAIMS about Jesus,
BELIEFS about Jesus.

But NO contemporary evidence.

We do NOT even have ONE authentic claim to have personally met a historical Jesus.



Pardon?
What do you mean?

All the ancient books are available in English.


Kapyong

Gday,



2 Peter is a 2nd century FORGERY.

Apart from Paul's authentic letters -
none of the NT epistles were actually written by the people whose names they bear :

1,2 Peter - forged, not by Peter
1,2,3 John - forged, not by John
Jude - forged, not by Jude
James - forged, not by James


Kapyong

Why are you criticizing me for agreeing with you? I just agreed with you that all the evidence in the world proves you're right. Any evidence that proves you wrong is obviously not evidence. I already agreed to not submit any evidence that disagrees with you and your point and you get mad?

I even admitted to agree that Jesus was the greatest Jewish leader of all time. What you've been trying to convince me of the whole time and now that I agree with you, you criticize me again? Why? I thought that was the whole point of the conversation? To prove that there is no evidence on the face of the earth that could ever prove Kapyong wrong. That was the point right? Well I agree. Kapyong knows everything. Could never be wrong. I even agree with you! What's the problem??

Oh well, I do have a little more faith in Jesus now though. Now that I know the historians believed in that stuff too. Thanks for letting me know that I didn't know that previously.



[edit on 29-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

Indeed!

Inadvertently, you've stumbled across the very reason why the bible is so popular also!

IRM

OK I'm open minded.

Would you mind proving that?

It's not like they had CNN back then.Lol And when Rome ransacked Jerusalem, they didn't just take the city, they tore down the walls, block by block and burned the temple. They plundered and took booty, just like Alexander the Great did to Babylon.

To this day, there is hardly anything left to Babylon and Alexander's body has yet to be found. But historians record that Marc Anthony visited his tomb (in Egypt), the Roman emperor Caligula looted the tomb and stole the dead kings breastplate, Pompey (the great) was so infatuated with him, that as he would take cities, he would plunder through closets looking for Alexander's cloak.

You will take historians words, that Alexander existed but you won't take personal testimony of people who claim they were eye-witnesses that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I know we live in a day and age, where we don't trust anyone and rightly so, but it wasn't always this way. Not so long ago, a man's word was a thing of honor.

It is often forgotten, that it was John the Baptizer who baptized and first pointed out and gave testimony as to who Jesus is. Since John's dad was himself a priest at the temple and his mother a daughter of Aaron maybe records can be dug up some day. In all the accounts that are recorded of John - he's known as a very good man and Jesus' testimony of John is that there was no one better than John that had been born of woman, up to that point.

One more thing some of you may want to keep in mind...... there is a lot of personal testimony, from people who have near death experiences or even out of body experiences who return with fantastic tales from the other side.

The vast majority of the NDE'ers got JC's back on this one.


[edit on 30-6-2009 by Myrtales Instinct]

Gday,



Who, exactly ?

Who personally claimed they were eye-witnesses to a historical Jesus of Nazareth?

Please quote the exact passage, and cite the authors and documents.
(Not counting the forged 2 Peter already mentioned.)


Kapyong


[edit on 30-6-2009 by Kapyong]

Gday,



Pardon?
We don't have any writings from John the Baptist.
Have you confused two different Johns?




Um,
are you claiming Near Death Experiences as evidence for Jesus?

How, exactly?



K.

Gday,



That's the consensus of modern NT scholars, I'll cite some comments therefrom -

1 Peter

Eric Eve writes: "Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "An argument often cited against the authenticity of 1 Peter is the lack of personal reminiscences from the life of Jesus, something one would surely expect in a letter from one who had accompanied him from Galilean ministry to resurrection. In defense of Petrine authorship, a variety of indications have been cited taht are held to represent such reminiscences. For example, the alteration of first and second person in 1:3-9 is claimed to show that while the readers have not seen Jesus (v. 6), the author (by implication) has (v. 3). Again, the reference to 'witness' in 5:1 is taken to mean Peter is calling himself an eyewitness to the passion of Jesus, a witness reflected supremely in 2:22-25. The difficulty with finding assurances of the report of an eyewitness is that these verses are patently drawn from Isaiah 53, and hence may owe more to the author's demonstrable reliance on the OT, and even to a notion of the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, than to the reminiscences of an eyewitness." (A Commentary on First Peter, p. 9)


K.

2 Peter

Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4):

1. The literary dependence on Jude rules this out. II Pet 1 and 3 already have a number of contacts with Jude: cf. II Pet 1:5 with Jude 3; II Pet 1:12 with Jude 5; II Pet 3:2 f with Jude 17 f; II Pet 3:14 with Jude 24; II Pet 3:18 with Jude 25. The most striking agreements with Jude are shown in the portrayal of the false teachers in II Pet 2 and also in the illustrations based on the OT and the pictures drawn from nature, agreements in the exact wording and extensive agreements in sequence. The false teachers deny the Lord Christ and lead a dissolute life (II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4), they despise and blaspheme the good angelic powers (II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 f), they speak in high-handed fashion (υπερογκα; II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16), they are blotches on the communal meal (σπιγοι συνευωχωμενοι; II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12), they are clouds tossed about by the wind, devoid of water, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved (II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 f), they are denounced for their fleshly corruption and their unrestrained mode of life (II Pet 2:10, 12 ff, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16). The sequence of examples of punishment from the OT in Jude 5 ff (Israel in the desert, fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah) is arranged in historical order in II Pet 2:4 ff and modified (fallen angels, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) because the author of II Pet needs the example of the Flood to combat the deniers of the parousia. The general statement in II Pet 2:11 makes sense only if note has been made of the concrete example mentioned in Jude 9. The image in Jude 12 f is more genuine and more plastic than the parallel in II Pet 2:17.

This material shows, therefore, that it is II Pet which is the dependent factor. It is further to be observed that the quotation from a noncanonical writing (Jude 14 f = the Apocalypse of Enoch 1:9; 60:8) is lacking in II Pet, and that by omitting certain essential features the allusions to the apocryphal writings have been somewhat obscured in Jude 6 (fallen angels) and 9 (the struggle between the archangel Michael and the Devil). From this it may be concluded that II Pet is already reluctant to use this literature whereas Jude has a naive attitude toward it. II Pet betrays a literary strategem in that the false teachers who are characterized by Jude as being in the present are depicted in II Pet as future and indeed predicted by Peter (2:1 ff, in the future; 3:3, 17 προγινωσκοντεσ). But in spite of this they are also described in the present tense (2:10, 12 ff, 20), and indeed the past tense is used (2:15, 22). Consequently it is almost universally recognized today that II Pet is dependent on Jude and not the reverse. Then II Pet 3:3 ff portrays the libertines as the deniers of the parousia. In this way he representes a more developed stage, while a less developed stage is evident in Jude, who does not yet know that the false teachers against whom he directs his attention might have denied the parousia. Since Jude belongs in the postapostolic age, Peter cannot have written II Pet.

2. The conceptual world and the rhetorical language are so strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely, nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the apostle.

The Hellenistic concepts include: the αρετη of God (1:3), virtue in addition to faith (1:5); knowledge (1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20; 3:18); participation in the divine nature (θειασ κοινωνοι φυσεωσ) "in order that one might escape corruption that is present in the world because of lust" (1:4); the term εποπται comes from the language of the mysteries (1:16); placed side by side are a quotation from Proverbs and a trite saying from the Hellenistic tradition (2:22).

3. The letter has a keen interest in opposing the denial of the Christians' expectation of the parousia. 1:12 ff already deals with the hope of the parousia, which is based on the fact of the transfiguration of Jesus and the OT prophecy. In 3:3 ff there is a direct polemic against those who deny the parousia. These ask scornfully, "Where is the promise of the parousia of Christ?" and draw attention to the fact that since the fathers have fallen asleep everything remains as it has been from the beginning of creation (3:4). In I Clem 23:3 f and II Clem 11:2 ff too, there is adduced a writing which was obviously read in Christian circles, in which is laid down the challenge "We have already heard that in the days of our fathers, but look, we are become old and nothing of that has happened to us." I Clem was written ca. 95, and II Clem can hardly have been written earlier than 150. We have, therefore, historical evidence from the end of the first century onward for the disdainful skepticism which is expressed in II Pet 3:3 ff. But it is the Gnostics of the second century who have opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It is probably also they who are meant by the proclaimers of the "clever myths" (1:16) and of "knowledge" (see point 2). Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers (see point 1). II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnosis. A more exact determination is not possible, however.

4. Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which "statements that are hard to understand" have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which inlcude not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). In view of the difficulty in understanding "scripture," and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that "no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation" because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of "early Catholocism."

It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged. This point of view can be confirmed through two further facts.

...

...

5. As in the case of the Pastorals, the pseudonymity in II Pet is carried through consistently by means of heavy stress on the Petrine authorship (see above, p. 430). The auther adduces his authority not only on the basis of the fiction of a "testament of Peter" but also by reference back to I Pet in 3:1 f, intending II Pet only to "recall" (1:12, 15; 3:1 f) what was said in I Pet to the extent that it corresponds to the interpretation which the author of II Pet wants to give to I Pet. This appeal to the apostolic authority of Peter and his letter is obviously occasioned by the sharpening of the Gnostic false teaching which is being combated in Jdue, as a result of a consistent denial of the parousia of the false teachers. In this way, the apostle has become the "guarantor of the tradition" (1:12 f), and as a consequence of the abandonment of the near expectation (3:8) the parousia is stripped of its christological character and functions as an anthropologically oriented doctrine of rewards. In its consistent quality the pseudonymity betrays the late origins of II Pet.

6. In spite of its heavy stress on Petrine authorship, II Pet is nowhwere mentioned in the second century. The apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about it. Its first attestation is in Origen, but according to him the letter is contested (αμφιβαλλεται). Eusebius lists it among the antilegomena. . . Even down to the fourth century II Pet was largely unknown or not recognized as canonical.

Furthermore, if it is recognized that I Peter is likely to be pseudepigraph, then II Peter must also be one because it refers back to the first one (3:1). Even assuming the authenticity of I Peter, however, it takes little reflection to recognize how unfortunate this church must have been, to be assailed at one moment by persecutors (in I Pet) and at the next moment by gnostic-style heretics (in II Pet), yet at the same time how blessed this church must have been, for the apostle Peter turned from preaching to writing in the final years of his life, and having received reconnaisance while in Rome on the rapidly evolving troubles of this parish, resolved to have them first consoled and then warned in his letters.

Besides, it is only so transparently not a letter, as the notes in the Catholic NAB state, "Except for the epistolary greetings in 1, 1-2, 2 Peter does not have the features of a genuine letter at all, but is rather a general exhortation cast in the form of a letter." As for the epistolary greeting, even it betrays that this is not actually correspondence, being sent "to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ." I certainly hope St. Peter would have provided better instructions for the courier, but perhaps he took a page from the book of the apostle Paul, who writes "to the holy ones who are faithful in Christ Jesus," which a later scribe was kind enough to explain as residing in Ephesus. Or perhaps the apostle Peter picked up this bad habit from Jude, the brother of James and a slave of Jesus Christ, who writes "to those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ."

The external evidence points most strongly to the inauthenticity of II Peter. If II Peter is authentic, then both epistles are authentic and both addressed themselves to the same church and were sent at approximately the same time (Peter's stay in Rome). Thus, it is most reasonable to assume that the two authentic epistles of Peter would have circulated together. However, the external evidence reveals that several early writers have knowledge only of I Peter, and this tells against the authenticity of II Peter.


K.

The bible has been proven (irreftueably) to have been written by the creator of the universe ( or a divine supernatural/superior mathmatical mind) whatever way you want to put it. One could then safely assume that what is written in the bible is the truth IE Including Jesus, unless of course one prefers to believe that said supernatural superior mathamatical mind is Satan.

(Ivan Panin proved this as early as 1899) His work has never been refuted, mocked and scorned yes, never refuted. There is a big difference. (the 66 books of the original greek and hebrew text that is) NB The translations of the bible are not inspired, although Ivan Panin spent 50 years correctling the many annomolies in the new testament so that an English person can read an EXACT translation of the restored Greek of the new testament. God promised he would preserve His word, He has done just that. if he can hold all of the planets and the stars upon nothing, He can surely preserve one book and this inspite of satan the god of this worlds attempts to destory and discredit it.

And yes there are at least two documents outside of the bible relating to the birth of Christ. One where Mary was slandered as a whore who slept with a Roman soldier, and another where Jesus was accused of being an illigitimate Bastard son. I will find the exact people who quoted this latter.


So there you have it folks, read the bible, repent, confess your sins receive Christ as saviour ( He still lives) get baptised and live a happy life leading others to the beautiful truth on earth and forever into eternity. AMEN.







[edit on 30-6-2009 by Imago Dei]