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,

Originally posted by badmedia
...I don't think it was OT.

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,

Originally posted by randyvs
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?

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

K.

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
That is your first problem. You need to go read 1Cor 15:8 before stating things like that.
Thanks,
TT

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,

Originally posted by d60944
Peter the apostle certainly claimed to have met Jesus. And Clement of Rome certainly knew that.

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

Originally posted by d60944
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).

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

Originally posted by d60944
Tertullian claims that Peter actually ordained Clement.

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

Originally posted by d60944
Clement also writes about a historical Jesus - clearly the same one known to Peter.

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.

Originally posted by d60944
It's not too hard to see that Clement could not have sanely done all these things if the historicity of Jesus was false.

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

Originally posted by d60944
Unless Peter was an inveterate and elaborate lier perheps... (one willing to die for his own lies - which would be very odd indeed).

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

Originally posted by d60944
Finally, it's as well to remember that the suriving Christian writings are not intended as historical testimony.

So are you admitting I was right?

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

Originally posted by d60944
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 :_)

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.

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

I wanted him to read it.

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

Paul was alive when Jesus was alive.

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

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,

Originally posted by d60944
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.

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,

Originally posted by texastig
Paul was alive when Jesus was alive.

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

Originally posted by texastig
Yes, I do. Christians don't pay attention to details very well.

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?

Originally posted by texastig
Also, there's over 16 ancient "non-Christian" sources for the historical Jesus".

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

Thanks for trying anyway...


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
...
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.

???????????

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,

Originally posted by OldThinker
Acts 9:

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.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by OldThinker
Acts 9:

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

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

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

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.

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

Gday,

Originally posted by OldThinker
Differ in "details"??????????

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,

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

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,

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
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?

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.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
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.

It's a known fake.


K.