Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

Peter the apostle certainly claimed to have met Jesus. And Clement of Rome certainly knew that.

Clement of Rome writes as if he knows (of?) Peter and Paul. He speaks of them as recently martyred (1 Clement 5). He speaks of them being in some way of his generation - though surely he was at least 30 years younger than they. The impression is that he knew them personally in some way (it would be odd to be a Christian contemporary of theirs in the same city, of high rank, and not to have known them indeed). No, Clement does unequivocally state he knew them personally, but an open mind should see that conclusion as the most likely given the context of Clement's letter(s). Tertullian claims that Peter actually ordained Clement.

Clement also writes about a historical Jesus - clearly the same one known to Peter.

It's not too hard to see that Clement could not have sanely done all these things if the historicity of Jesus was false. Unless Peter was an inveterate and elaborate lier perheps... (one willing to die for his own lies - which would be very odd indeed).

Finally, it's as well to remember that the suriving Christian writings are not intended as historical testimony. They were written to encourage, discipline, exhort, teach various communities - it is no surpirse that they didn't feel the need to be claiming a historicity for Jesus. Preaching to Converted. Literally :_)

Gday,



Mate !

The post is about people who cliamed to have met a historical Jesus 2000 years ago.

Your post had NOTHING to do with that.

K.

Gday,



Well,
it seems to matter to you,
or why did you post ?

K.

Gday,



There's your problem -

You need to understand what 1 Cor 15:8 says before stating false claims like that.

It has NOTHING about Paul meeting a historical Jesus - probably why you failed to quote it :

"...and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born"

The Risen Christ APPEARED to Paul in a vision, YEARS after the alleged crucifixion.

Do you really seriously claim this refers to a historical Jesus?
Because that's not what Christians generally believe at all.


thanks,


K.

Gday,



We don't have any authentic writings from Peter - just forgeries.




Clement never met says he met Peter or Paul, certainly never met Jesus.



So what?
This thread is about people who claimed to have met Jesus personally.




No he doesn't.
Which is why you failed to quote him saying so.

In fact, Clement mentions the SAYINGS of Jesus twice - that's it - NO mention of any historical details at all.




But Clement DIDN'T do all those things.
Go check the facts please.




The person who FORGED Peter's letters WAS a liar.




So are you admitting I was right?

That not one Christian left an authentic claim to have met Jesus personally.




But that's EXACTLY what DID happen - once the Gospel stories eventually became known - Christians DO repeat the details over and over.

Here is the pattern :

* early Christians say NOTHING about a historical Jesus

* the Gospels stories appear (early-mid 2nd century)

* Christians start REPEATING the details over and over

* Nowadays, the details are ENDLESSLY preached over and over.

Your argument is shown false by the fact that later Christians DO preach to the choir - endlessly, over and over ....


The early Christians didn't mention a historical Jesus because they had never heard of one.


K.

I wanted him to read it.



Paul was alive when Jesus was alive.



Yes, I do. Christians don't pay attention to details very well.
Also, there's over 16 ancient "non-Christian" sources for the historical Jesus".

Thanks,
TT

It's a bit unfair to expect me to go through the entire letter of Clement and point it all out. Read it - it's online.

Gday,



I HAVE read it.
I have it on disk
I have it in my library.

If YOU make claims about Clement, it is up to YOU to cite the passages that support your claims.

WHAT are you trying to point out exactly?
I showed your claims about Clement were wrong.

Clement does not say anything about meeting Paul or Peter (which isn't even the topic here.)


K.

Gday,



So?
What does that have to do with the OP?




So YOU claim you know better than all other Christians?
So you really think a VISION is historical evidence?
Seriously?

A VISION of Christ YEARS after his alleged death - and you actually, really claim that is evidence for a historical Jesus?

Do you believe people who say they have VISIONS of Buddha?
Hercules? Apollo? Mohamed?




None of which stand up to scrutiny.
Which is why you failed to cite any.

Thanks for trying anyway...


K.

Gday,



None of which stand up to scrutiny :

Being interested in history, I have checked the evidence, and present the results here as a list of writers or documents who are claimed to be evidence for Jesus, along with analysis of how significant they are.


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


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.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

...

...

POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



In short,
* there are no Roman records of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.


K.

???????????

Acts 9:

1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”

“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

= = = =

OT confused here...K, pls enlighten!

OT

Gday,



So,
some unknown writer described Paul having a supernatural vision of Jesus - the story is told more than once, and the stories DIFFER in details.

That's not someone claiming to have met a historical Jesus at all !

That's differing stories by OTHERS about people having VISIONS.


K.

Differ in "details"??????????

What does one say he met OBAMA on the road to Damascus....????

You raise a difference, like between "have" and "has"....

If you have set your eternity on GRAMMAR, pls go ahead....


I'll set mine on INTENT...!!!!

OT

Props to you for FINALLY answering the ole' guy....I started to think you hit the IGNORE button on me.....glad you didn't

There is more evidence for JESUS than any other figure in history...pls don't be fooled by this BS!

Archaeology:

_The Bible and Archaeology
_The Mighty Assyrian Empire Emerges from the Dust
_The 'House of David' Verified in Inscriptions
_Celts and Scythians Linked by Archaeological Discoveries
_The Geography of Celtic-Scythian Commerce
_Archaeology and the City of David
_King David: Man or Myth?
_Archaeology and Genesis: What Does the Record Show? (9/96)
_Archaeology and Genesis: What Does the Record Show?
_Archaeology and the Book of Exodus: Exit From Egypt (3/97)
_Archaeology and the Book of Exodus: Exit From Egypt
_Archaeology and the Book of Joshua: The Conquest
_Archaeology and the Book of Judges
_King David's Reign: A Nation United
_King Solomon's Reign: Israel's Golden Years
_The Early Kings of Israel: A Kingdom Divided
_The Later Kings of Israel: A Kingdom's Downfall
_The Early Kings of Judah: Miraculous Deliverance
_The Bible and Archaeology - The Kingdom of Judah: Exile and Restoration
_Jesus Christ's Later Ministry
_The Bible and Archaeology: Jesus Christ's Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion
_The Bible & Archaeology - The Book of Acts: The Church Begins
_The Bible & Archaeology - The Book of Acts: The Message Spreads
_The Bible & Archaeology - The Book of Acts: Paul's Later Travels
_Archaeology and the Epistles
_The Book of Revelation: History and Prophecy
_An Ancient Inscription Proves King David Was Real
_The Mighty Assyrian Empire Emerges From the Dust
_The Bible: Myth or History
_Jericho: Does the Evidence Disprove or Prove the Bible?
_A Good News Interview with Bryant Wood, Ph.D.
_Noah's Flood: Serious Problems With Dating Methods
_Noah's Flood: Did It Really Happen?
_The Bible Was Right After All
_God, Science and the Bible (3/05)
_God, Science and the Bible (7/05)
_God, Science and the Bible (9/05)
_God, Science and the Bible (11/05)
_God, Science and the Bible (1/06)
_A Place Called Megiddo
_God, Science and the Bible (5/06)
_God, Science and the Bible (1/07)
_Can You Believe the Bible?
_God, Science and the Bible (7/07)
_God, Science and the Bible (9/07)
_God, Science and the Bible (1/08)
_God, Science and the Bible (3/08)
_God, Science and the Bible 11/2008
_In the News Jan/Mar 2007
_In the News Apr/June 2007
_In the News... Jan 1999
_Darwinism in the Classroom
_The Exodus Controversy
_Archaeology in Acts, Part 1
_Archaeology in Acts, Part 2: The Message Spreads
_Archaeology in Acts, Part 3: Paul's Later Travels
_Does Archaeology Confirm the Existence of Specific People Mentioned in the Bible?

learn some here: www.ucgstp.org...

Jesus never founded anything as ridiculous as a religion. Who told you this?

Yes, the stories can be bizzare, but some are claimed to be from some of the disciples and Mary Magdeline. As to their authenticity... Who knows?



And your basis for this? Have you actually viewed the documentary? While it would prove that Jesus actually existed, it would crush the version of Jesus in the Bible, as it would prove that he never rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. It also eludes to him being married and having a child, Judah, which also contradicts the biblical version of Jesus.



[edit on 1-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

[edit on 1-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

Gday,



Oh, I'm sorry,
I thought you had actually READ Acts.

There are several obvious differences:
* whether his companions saw anything
* what his companions heard
* whether Paul fell down or all did
* how long Paul was blind
* the words of Jesus differ
* what was said by Ananias differs
* what happens aftewards differs

Many obvious differences in the stories (all told by someone else, not Paul.)


K.

Gday,



Really?
I showed how all the usual suspects are, well, suspect.
But you ignored all that, and instead posted a list of books.

But NO 1st hand claims by anyone to have met a historical Jesus - the subject of this thread.



K.

Gday,



Scholars know.
They are not written by anyone who ever met Jesus.

If YOU claim they were, then cite the book(s) and the evidence.




It's a known fake.


K.