Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

Hi all,

I thought this deserved a new thread after it came up in another -

It is frequently claimed that we have multiple eye-witnesses who claimed to have met Jesus.

This is probably why believers respond with cries of
"why would they die for a lie?"
"how could it all be a hoax?"
"that's just a conspiracy theory"
when a sceptic claims the Gospels are not true history.

Because -
believers are convinced we have numerous reliable claims from identifiable people that they met Jesus - thus if Jesus did not exist, then all those eye-witness claims must have been a "hoax". If Jesus was not historical, the claims to have met him must have been a "lie", If Jesus never lived then all those multiple claimed eye-witnesses must have been involved in a "conspiracy".

So, let's examine the evidence -

How many :
* identifiable people
* claimed to have met Jesus
* in authentic writing.
?

Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.

It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.

the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.

G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.

G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.

G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.

G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.

Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.

James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.

Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.

the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.

Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.

Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus

Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.

So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.

There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.

But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Christians - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.

So,
If Jesus wasn't historical, there is NO LIE, NO HOAX and NO CONSPIRACY required at all - because there are NO actual claims to have met Jesus to be a hoax or a lie or a conspiracy in the first place.

Just later books and claims, and claims about books.


Kapyong

nice work breaking that down. i wish you wouldve gotten responses, could've been fun.

Gday,



Yah,
apologists insist we have numerous personal eye-witness accounts of a historical Jesus (e.g. Myrtales Instinct.)

But when we examine the facts, we find that is NOT TRUE at all !

There is NOT ONE (authentic) claim to have met any historical Jesus in ALL the CHRISTIAN writings !

The alleged god-man who FOUNDED their religion - but NOT ONE Christian is on record as personally meeting him.


K.

I don't have my John's mixed up at all. John the Baptist came first. He pointed out who Jesus is and gave testimony and that testimony was recorded. You have a problem with how it was recorded and by whom. Get over it. You don't have to believe it - free will ! I'm not here to sway you. I'm here to give my opinion based on, not just things I've read but experiences as well. Am I obligated to provide you links or to tell you of my experiences? Absolutely not.

The fourth book is the Gospel of John. This is the account of the beloved disciple, who was taught the mysteries of the kingdom and that is why it is so different compared to the first three. I've read that most scholars think it is the least important of the four but they are wrong. If you would spend just half the amount of time looking into why this could be so, instead of trying to disprove Jesus historically - you would be at least opening your mind instead of closing doors.

There are literally thousands of NDE's on line free for you to read at your leisure. Many people have encountered Jesus in the light. And I'm of the opinion, that this was even predicted in the Book of Daniel, where people would travel to and fro and knowledge would be increased.

Since you singled me out, let me be very clear, that I could give a rat's ass what you believe and how you come to your conclusions, but if you want to know the real truth you need to seriously consider taking off that skeptics hat and take a new look at the Word of God. You drip with negativity, when God is nothing but goodness.



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

reply to post by Kapyong

---

Wasn't Peter one of Jesus desciples, and he was contemporary (lived at the same time) as Paul/Saul. Paul lived at the same time as Peter and argued with him about whether the Gospel was intended for Jews alone or to include the Gentiles.

The debunkers never mention that connection, and what do they make of Paul's letters, and of his experience, and testimony..

There are the Gnostic Gospels, which contradict the ones in the NT. There is also the documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus", which presents compelling evidence that his tomb was found. This however shoots down the resurrection and ascension story, as he was still inside the tomb and is now buried in an unmarked grave on a hill outside of Jerusalem.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

Another link to sale a video. Do not the Mods frown upon this?

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

reply to post by max.is.awake

---

Fine, I changed it to the Wikipedia article. Happy now?

LOL... what you reply to when you cannot sleep... but here is some additional information.

markdroberts.typepad.com...

Great information for the truly curious (If an evangelical atheist with a chip on his shoulder, it won't help.)



[edit on 1-7-2009 by infolurker]

Gday,



No problem.
Just pointing out the fact that John the Baptists did not leave any writings of his own - that's the subject of this thread.

Which is why we know he did not leave any 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus.

Anyway-
how do you explain the fact the the actual WORDS of GOD (allegedly) at the Baptism were CHANGED by scribes?

Early MSS and writers have God saying :
"This is my beloved son, this day have I begotten thee"

Later scribes had to change this to :
"This is my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased"

That shows how reliable these books are - completely UNreliable. Scribes can change even the alleged words of God when they feel like it !



No,
but if you want to answer THIS post, you'll have to cite 1st hand writing claiming to have met Jesus personally.



G.John does not contain any 1st hand claims to have met Jesus.
It has a passage (which was added later) in which someone claims 'THIS is the one' .. 'HIS word is true'...

Not 1st hand at all.



What about the NDEs in which people see Buddha?
Or Krishna? Or Xenu?
Hmmm?



So, you have plenty to preach,
but
not one single 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus.


Kapyong

Gday,



Paul mentioned people called 'Cephas' and 'Peter'. Later Christians think they are the same person. Paul does not defer to Peter or Cephas, and does not say they ever met Jesus - he specifally says he learned about Jesus 'from no man'. We don't have any authentic writings from Peter or Cephas.

There is no connection to a historical Jesus there at all.




Paul's testimony?
He never met a historical Jesus.
Nor mentions anyone else who ever did.

Just people who had VISIONS of a Risen Christ Jesus.


K.

Gday,



Yah, they tell all sorts of bizarre stories.



Get off the grass!
That's as real as Noah's Ark or the Shroud of Turin or the foreskins of Jesus !


K.

Gday,



If you have something to add to this thread, please let us know what it is.

Does that site include claims of 1st hand claims to have personally met Jesus?


K.

I've never meet a "Jesus". But I have meet the father, and have been given understanding. It was an experience and when it happened I knew the father was within me, and I understood many things.

When I had the experience, I was no where near a church, and disliked organized religion very much. I still do. A few months after my experience, I started to come across a few Jesus quotes. I was dumbfounded at what they were saying. The first one I read was:

John 14:20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I couldn't believe it, he was exactly right. I've known many Christians, been to many churches. Never was anything like this told to me. It was always "accept Jesus", and seeing who could say the nicest thing possible about Jesus and how great he was, mixed in with a large dose of hypocrisy. But it was exactly right.

In fact, John 14 completely describes what I experienced. And when I read Jesus, I see all the understandings I learned. I know for myself that what he is saying is true.

So I don't know Jesus, but I can recognize the father within him. I know he speaks of understandings and wisdom that only come from the father. And no man can give you those.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me at all if the "historical Jesus" actually exists. At all. It's not even an important question in things. Either way, it's just a story to you. And even if there was no "historical Jesus", whoever wrote that story certainly knew the truth and knew the father, and it shows.

So it doesn't matter. Arguing and even worrying about if Jesus is literally real or not is about like arguing over if Neo and the machines are literally real. It doesn't matter what side of that argument you are on, you missed the entire point and real truth of the movie.

It's all about the understanding. Understanding can not be told, it can only be expressed. If you are arguing over the literal - on either side of it, then you are just listening. You can't hear the real words, you can't hear and you have no real clue what is being said or talked about.

Honestly, I don't find it that hard to believe that someone like Jesus lived. Someone obviously lived that could think of the story if nothing else.

I'm not saying go to church or anything. I am not a Christian. But try focusing on what is important. How about debating the principles and understandings he gives, rather than worthless debates of trying to prove if someone 2000 years ago lived or not? Either way, it's just a story as is all of history you weren't there for.

What is it that Jesus teaches and does that you think is bad/wrong? Lets talk about that. Those are things we can apply to our lives in a helpful way.

Stop trying to validate your own beliefs to yourself. This is a thread about historical figures who actually met a historical Jesus.

If you aren't one of them, and can't suggest anyone who is, then it's not really relevant for you to post your "enlightenment", is it?

I'd just like to add, St Peter is my favourite, only because of how dismissive Jesus is of him.

"Hallo, my name's Simon!"
"Hmm...I shall call you...Peter."
"Er...no, it's Simon..."
"Sorry, Peter, did you say something?"
"...no sir."

What's the insult for?

The truth is, I have never meet a being going by the name of Jesus. However, Jesus says that it is the father within him that does those things. I recognize the father within him. I do know the father, and in that way I can say I know Jesus better than what the bible will even tell you. After all, isn't the claim that the historical Jesus is the father? I say it the way I do because of people who only think of Jesus as being a person/being.

Anyway, all you have to do is look back in history to see how these things were shared, and you know that most of the stories were verbally passed down until someone wrote them on paper.

If you guys want to sit around and look for a way to dismiss it all, be my guest. I was just trying to point out why in the big picture of things it doesn't really matter one way or another. It's really missing the point of things.

My apologies for pointing it out, I don't think it was OT. To me it's about like 1 person arguing they need to put coca-cola on their grass, and another person saying no, you need some pepsi, I mention trying a little water, and they tell me to shut up because they were arguing over coke and pepsi, not water or what I've seen water do. Seems relevant to the topic to me.

If you are just wanting to discredit the scriptures themselves as being authority, then all you need to do is look at the last 2 lines of matthew 7.

reply to post by badmedia

---

I didn't insult you, I asked you to keep it relevant, which you are not doing.

What you believe about the subject isn't pertinant to whether it is a historical figure that actually met Jesus, I'm sorry, but that is the case.

reply to post by Kapyong

---

well i can definatly say you've absolutly put up one the best arguements i've ever seen to convince yourself. carry on. i mean does
that matter?



[edit on 1-7-2009 by randyvs]

I take this as an insult:



I saw the topic in terms of what it meant to "see" Jesus, rather than being only about trying to list anyone who claimed to have met Jesus. If that's not the case, and it's just about trying to list whoever physically claimed to have met Jesus, then my appologies - I wouldn't have bothered with a reply in the first place as it's not a topic of interest for me.

That is your first problem. You need to go read 1Cor 15:8 before stating things like that.

Thanks,
TT

[edit on 7/1/2009 by texastig]