Gday,

Originally posted by d60944
Sorry for a long delay before I replied.... work.
My point in talking about St Clement was - utterly ignored,

No it wasn't.
I answered your point about Clement back on page 2.
You ignored my answer, then falsely accuse me of ignoring you ?!

Originally posted by d60944is that there were most definitely people who knew people who knew Jesus.

So you claim.
But we do not have one single 1st hand claim to have met Jesus - which is the subject of this thread.

Let's consider Clement more closely -
He merely gives us 2 SAYINGS about Jesus - nothing historical at all about Jesus.

He mentions Peter's name once and Paul's twice :

Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned.
...
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?

Clement does NOT say ANYTHING about a historical Jesus.

Clement does NOT say Peter met Jesus,
Clement does NOT say Paul met Jesus,
Clement does NOT say he ever met Paul,
Clement does NOT say he ever met Peter.


It's the same old story :
1st - we have an early letter which says nothing about meeting Jesus
2nd - later on, OTHER Christians make CLAIMS about the earlier writings.


The evidence is clear -
we do not have ONE SINGLE 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus.


K.

Why yo uhad to go and start another thread to spout the same crap is beyond me, it just means Ihave to post everything twice.

Here are just few to refute your LIES.

1. John. 1. 14...and we beheld his glory (beheld =. to observe; look at; see.) We implies first hand witness.

2. John 21:24 - 25 This is the deciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true. And many other things also which Jesus did, which if they where written every one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written. (The deciple John stating clearly that he wrote the Gospel of John).

2. 1. John. 1-4 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, [what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and our hands handled concerning the word manifested and we have seen and witnesses, and declare to you the life, the eternal which was with the Father and was manifested to us what we have seen and heard declares we to you also that ye also may have fellowship with us yea and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and these things we write that our joy be made full.

"in the beginning dwas the word, the word was with God, the word was God" IE the word is Jesus who John is stating that He wistnessed first hands. Your ve been refuted, so shut your trap.

(Here the author of I. John makes it crystal clear that he witnessed Jesus Christ in the Flesh.)

So:

1. admit you are a LIAR
2. Leave the thread
3. put a sock in it.
4. And dont start another thread issuing forth the same lies.


However as I said, even if all books in the bible are anonymously written makes your point moot. Yes it does, if not, explain why your point is even worthy of discussion because it does nothing to refute the validity of the bible as a historical record of when God joined us on earth in the flesh.

IE Moot and now mute dead red herrings floating down the stream.

The fact that you dodnt even know the bible contained 66 books, shows me that you have little or no bible knowldege and are taking all of your disinf verbatum from athiest disinformation specialits websites.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

While the baiting back and forth has been mildly entertaining, I'm not sure what the point is.

If the OP is correct, how does it impact anything?

It seems like rhetoric for rhetoric's sake. The OP is clearly not a Christian and seems determined to find something that he deems detrimental to the faith of others, but I just don't get how it matters in the least.

No one doubts the existence of Confucius or Ghengis Khan (amongst many) in spite of there being no contemporaneous accounts of their actions or writings. We have no extant first hand accounts of many historical figures and still accept their existence.

Why the focus on Jesus?


Eric

Originally posted by EricD
While the baiting back and forth has been mildly entertaining, I'm not sure what the point is.

If the OP is correct, how does it impact anything?

It seems like rhetoric for rhetoric's sake. The OP is clearly not a Christian and seems determined to find something that he deems detrimental to the faith of others, but I just don't get how it matters in the least.

No one doubts the existence of Confucius or Ghengis Khan (amongst many) in spite of there being no contemporaneous accounts of their actions or writings. We have no extant first hand accounts of many historical figures and still accept their existence.

Why the focus on Jesus?


Eric

Because Jesus is the saviour of mankind, he aslo claimed, and proved He was God in the flesh, meaning Yes, God visited the earth in Human form (if it where true, for the unbeliver of course). Also because it's an internet forum where people post tripe every second in attempts to discredit this truth of Gods word. But you raise a good point. Also the reason people like me post is because the OP is a lie and this site is supposedly based on the premise of denying Ignorance, not pushing ignorance.

So in essence Jesus Christ is fundemental the eternal destiny of every human being. Confusius isn't, neither is Gengis Kahn. And if this Krapwrong was posting disinf about either of these two, I dare say no would be in the slightest bit interested and neither would you be mildly entertained.
















[edit on 4-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by d60944
Sorry for a long delay before I replied.... work.
My point in talking about St Clement was - utterly ignored,

No it wasn't.
I answered your point about Clement back on page 2.
You ignored my answer, then falsely accuse me of ignoring you ?!

Sorry, I mean you didn't seem to be addressing the point of second-hand witness, not ignoring my post in entirety,

Let's consider Clement more closely -
He merely gives us 2 SAYINGS about Jesus - nothing historical at all about Jesus.

How does a person who does not exist have any "sayings"?

He

mentions Peter's name once and Paul's twice :

Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned.
...
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?

Name-counting is hardly the point. The main references to Peter and Paul place them as Clement's contemporaries in Rome, but you catrefully left out that bit (and Tertullian's record that Peter ordained Clement). This was the main point about "knowing someone who knew Jesus":

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy.... Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance....

Clement does NOT say ANYTHING about a historical Jesus.

*Sigh* - and you said you have the letter there with you. Yes he does....

being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke:...

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him.

[long quote from Isaiah follows here]

You see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace?

Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us

Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.

(Difficult to die if he never lived...)

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ...

Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said...

On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.

And while on the subject, Paul gives us an important second-hand descriptiopn of the historical last supper with Jesus...

As to demanding first-hand written accounts (which is plainly silly)... Where there is no evidence, it is normally the most sense to adopt the more likely hypothesis. It is not normal to adopt the most bizarre conclusions from a lack of evidence. I have no written testimony of anyone having met my great grandmother, yet I do not therefore conclude she did not exist, and that she is a figment of my generation's
imagination.

The evidence is clear -
we do not have ONE SINGLE 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus.

I think this is the key flaw in your argument. Aside from the interpolations into the gospel of John at the crucifixion, there is no firsthand written claim to have seen Jesus. (There is second-hand written evidence though, and more-or-less consistent oral tradition.)

However, this is not evidence of anything at all. I'll say it again. It is not evidence of anything at all: it is lack of one type of evidence. This lack of evidence prooves nothing, unless you claim that this evidence "should" exist - which is the task if you really want to make something out of the observation.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by d60944]

Gday,

Originally posted by d60944
Aside from the interpolations into the gospel of John at the crucifixion, there is no firsthand written claim to have seen Jesus.

Fantastic !
I am glad we agree.

There is no 1st hand claim to have met Jesus - the subject of this thread.
Like I said.

Thanks.


Regarding the wider subject of whether Jesus existed - yes, that is a complex subject with many issues and factors to be considered and weighed.

One of those issues is eye-witness accounts - of which we have none.


K.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by Kapyong]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by d60944
Aside from the interpolations into the gospel of John at the crucifixion, there is no firsthand written claim to have seen Jesus.

Fantastic !
I am glad we agree.

There is no 1st hand claim to have met Jesus - the subject of this thread.
Like I said.

Thanks.


Regarding the wider subject of whether Jesus existed - yes, that is a complex subject with many issues and factors to be considered and weighed.

One of those issues is eye-witness accounts - of which we have none.


K.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by Kapyong]

Why do you think you can get away with denying the authours of scripture as eye witness accounts?

1. John. 1. 14...and we beheld his glory (beheld =. to observe; look at; see.)

2. John 21:24 - 25 This is the deciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true. And many other things also which Jesus did, which if they where written every one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written. (The deciple John stating clearly that he wrote the Gospel of John).

2. 1. John. 1-4 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and our hands handled concerning the word manifested and we have seen and witnesses, and declare to you the life, the eternal which was with the Father and was manifested to us what we have seen and heard declares we to you also that ye also may have fellowship with us yea and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and these things we write that our joy be made full.


If you simply wave these away with an unbelieving hand that these are not the words written by an eye witness, then quite simply you can't be reasoned with or be taken serioulsy.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

Gday,

Thanks for your comments, IronheadMagnet :-)

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Why do you think you can get away with denying the authours of scripture as eye witness accounts?

Because none of them are 1st hand eye-witness accounts by identifiable people - as modern NT scholars agree.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
1. John. 1. 14...and we beheld his glory (beheld =. to observe; look at; see.)

An ANONYMOUS book - NOT written by "John".
Not a 1st hand eye-witness account.
As modern NT scholars agree.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
2. John 21:24 - 25 This is the deciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true.

"...WE know HIS testimony..." = CLAIMS by someone else.
Not a 1st hand eye-witness account.
Why do you think "we" means "I"?
Why do you think "his" means "mine"?
Are you from a sect that is allowed to change the words of the Bible?

Originally posted by Imago Dei
2. 1. John. 1-4 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and our hands handled concerning the word manifested and we have seen and witnesses, and declare to you the life, the eternal which was with the Father and was manifested to us what we have seen and heard declares we to you also that ye also may have fellowship with us yea and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and these things we write that our joy be made full.

What did he see?
Where does he say he saw or touched Jesus?
Hmmm?

You seem so excited by the words "we saw", and "our hands handled" etc. that you failed to notice he NEVER mentions it was a physical Jesus.

Seriously, Imago - WHY do you think this refers to meeting Jesus?
It doesn't say anything like that.

Just vague religious formula like "word manifested".
Which could mean anything.


K.


[edit on 12-7-2009 by Kapyong]

What about the text, known as the Gospel of Thomas?

Some scholars believe it was written as early as 60 AD, while yet others believe it to be as late as 120 AD.

Unlike the gospels found in the NT - this is just a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus by Thomas. The only saying in question is number 114 itself and there are some who feel it was added at some later date.

This testament actually opens with the line "These ARE the secret sayings, that the LIVING JESUS SPOKE AND DIDYMOS JUDAS THOMAS RECORDED."

Saying number 13 - has Jesus talking to the disciples and then taking Thomas aside and telling him some things and when Thomas returns the others want to know what Jesus told him.

Saying number 28 - has Thomas recording Jesus saying "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty."

Saying number 61 - has Jesus stating "two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live." Immediately after this and included in the same saying, Thomas records Salome as saying to Jesus, "Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone."

Phantoms don't climb on couches do they?

Gday,

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
What about the text, known as the Gospel of Thomas?

Well, does it contain an eye-witness claim to have met Jesus?
No.

The starting passage possibly implies it, but doesn't state it.

The author "Thomas Didymus" (the twin twin) is supposedly Jude who wrote the epistle of Jude.

Jude is allegedly Jesus BROTHER !

But neither G.Thomas, nor E.Jude make ANY mention of being Jesus' brother - the G.Thomas has NO personal or historical comments from Jude at all.

Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctSome scholars believe it was written as early as 60 AD, while yet others believe it to be as late as 120 AD.

And some date it even later.

Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctUnlike the gospels found in the NT - this is just a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus by Thomas. The only saying in question is number 114 itself and there are some who feel it was added at some later date.

Yes, sayings only - no historical events.

Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctThis testament actually opens with the line "These ARE the secret sayings, that the LIVING JESUS SPOKE AND DIDYMOS JUDAS THOMAS RECORDED."

Does the author specifically say he is that person?
No.

Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctSaying number 13 - has Jesus talking to the disciples and then taking Thomas aside and telling him some things and when Thomas returns the others want to know what Jesus told him.

Yes, a story about a Jesus saying.
No claim to be a 1st-hand eye-witness.

Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctSaying number 28 - has Thomas recording Jesus saying "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty."

Yes, a story about a Jesus saying.
No claim to be a 1st-hand eye-witness.

Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctSaying number 61 - has Jesus stating "two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live." Immediately after this and included in the same saying, Thomas records Salome as saying to Jesus, "Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone."

Yes, a story about a Jesus story.
No claim to be a 1st-hand eye-witness.

Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctPhantoms don't climb on couches do they?

I didn't say Jesus was a phantom.
(Some Christians did claim Jesus was a phantom.)

I said we have no authentic 1st-hand claims to have met Jesus.

The Gospel of Thomas does not have any such direct claims, nor do any other Christian writings (not counting the forged 2 Peter.)


K.

So,

we are agreed then -

We do not have ONE single authentic 1st hand claim to have met a historical Jesus.

2 Peter - forged.

G.John - a 3rd hand claim.

G.Luke - no 1st hand eye-witness claim

Paul - had only a VISION of CHrist.


That is - not one real person, even a Christian, claimed to have met Jesus.


K.

I would echo EricD's point about the many other historical figures for whom we have no contemporary accounts. Why doesn't it seem to matter to recognised secular historians that these accounts are absent for them to believe that these historical figures existed? Why is the same situation not good enough for many people on this forum in terms of Jesus?

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Gday,

Originally posted by Roark
I would echo EricD's point about the many other historical figures for whom we have no contemporary accounts. Why doesn't it seem to matter to recognised secular historians that these accounts are absent for them to believe that these historical figures existed?

Wrong.

Other figures from ancient history ARE doubted and treated with scepticism - such as :
* Socrates
* Solon
* Lao Tzu
* Krishna
* Zoroaster
* Gautama Buddha
* Pythagoras

All of those names have been doubted to various amounts.

(Not to mention :
* Adam and Eve - clearly mythical
* Noah - clearly mythical
* Abraham - almost certainly mythical
* Joseph - almost certainly mythical
* Moses - almost certainly mythical
* Solomon - probably mythical
* David - almost certainly mythical)


Scholars do NOT just blindly BELIEVE other ancient figures existed at all !
That's just a favourite Christian legend.

All ancient stories and claims are evaluated with scepticism.

Originally posted by Roark
Why is the same situation not good enough for many people on this forum in terms of Jesus?

Other figures ARE doubted.

The reality is the opposite of your claim -

Christians believe Jesus' historicity should NOT be challenged, but don't care (or even seem to know) that others ARE doubted.

Originally posted by Roark
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

When we would expect to see much evidence, and see NOTHING contemporary, NOT ONE person claiming to have met Jesus, then -

yes, it is.


K.



[edit on 2-8-2009 by Kapyong]

Very good post OP. I think the evidence you provided is very solid. It is important in the search for truth to actually understand that the person of Jesus is most likely fictional. This is important to understand. I am glad you cared enough about the subject to research it thoroughly and spend time writing such a well thought out thread.

I want to quote my favorite Author if you will permit me OP.

"Nothing is more sacred than the facts." -Sam Harris

Originally posted by Kapyong
Other figures from ancient history ARE doubted and treated with scepticism - such as :
* Socrates
* Solon
* Lao Tzu
* Krishna
* Zoroaster
* Gautama Buddha
* Pythagoras

All of those names have been doubted to various amounts.

Are you actually suggesting that these people didn't exist? Or are you merely offering the (somewhat weak) argument that someone somewhere doubts their existence?

Let me spell it out for ya. They are generally held to have existed at some point in history within serious academic circles, as is Jesus.

And no, the lack of any contemporary eyewitness accounts does NOT equal evidence of absence. I don't understand how you can suggest that with a straight face, except that you have dug your heels in over some agenda. Apply the same standards to poor old Genghis Khan, dude.

Gday,

Originally posted by Roark
Are you actually suggesting that these people didn't exist? Or are you merely offering the (somewhat weak) argument that someone somewhere doubts their existence?

No, I was showing a list of examples of people sometimes considered certain to have existed, have in fact been doubted. In fact there are serious doubts in scholarly circles whether Lao Tzu, or Krishna, or Zoroaster existed.

Conversely, the other list was of people mythical who had been considered real. You snipped that list.

My point was clear -

We do NOT just assume or believe ancient figures existed at all - in answer to your statement :

Originally posted by Roark
Why doesn't it seem to matter to recognised secular historians that these accounts are absent for them to believe that these historical figures existed?

Firstly - it DOES matter to secular historians - that is, the EVIDENCE does matter, in deciding whether some ancient person really existed.

Secondly - it's not just "these accounts" or some a specific type of evidence. It's not black and white, true or false. It's the totality of the evidence.

Originally posted by Roark
Let me spell it out for ya. They are generally held to have existed at some point in history within serious academic circles,

Note the weasel word 'generally'.
Which means 'not 100%'.

Like I said - it's not cut and dried, there is a spectrum from certainly mythical to certainly historical. Krishna and Lao Tzu are quite doubtful. Zoroaster was probably a title of several people.

Originally posted by Roark
as is Jesus.

Yes, it's a majority view that Jesus existed. Not 100%.

But the vast majority of scholars who argue Jesis exsted are Christians who livelihood and reputation depends on Jesus existing, or working in Christian organisations. Not to mention the vasr momentum and deadweight of all the previous generations who believed, because it was DEATH not to believe !

It has only JUST become POSSIBLE to even argue for the mythical Jesus - of course it is a minority view.

In India - do you think as many believe in Jesus existing as do in Krishna?

Originally posted by Roark
And no, the lack of any contemporary eyewitness accounts does NOT equal vidence of absence.

Oh come on ! Enough of the word games.

The existence of Jesus depends on the EVIDENCE (like all figures in ancient history.)

If the evidence for Jesus is lacking or suspect, then Jesus non-existence is the appropriate conclusion.

And what do we see?

The evidence IS lacking, and what late evidence we have is suspect.

Originally posted by Roark
I don't understand how you can suggest that with a straight face, except that you have dug your heels in over some agenda. Apply the same standards to poor old Genghis Khan, dude.

Why?
Do you think they are at all similar?

Because it shouldbe obvious they are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. We have direct genetic evidence of Genghis Khan, along with many other kinds of hard archeological evidence, and direct 1st hand testimony.

For Jesus ?
We don't even have ONE genuine CHRISTIAN who claims to have met Jesus in person! Or Mary, or Joseph, or Lazarus, or Nicodemus.

Not one Christian ever actually MET the central founding people that LATER Christians came to tell stories about.


So, let's consider some more people from ancient books -
Noah, Abraham, Moses, Hercules, Persephone, Iasion, Hermes, Krishna, Zoroaster, Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, Horus, Jesus...

Of course Christians believe Jesus existed.

But when a non-believer looks hard at the evidence, Jesus belongs more in that last list than the historical one.


K.

Weaselly? Puhleeaase... I've been straight up with you. Don't insult me in the absence of providing a rational argument.

Virtually nothing is "cut and dried", which is why I used the word "generally". You will never get a 100% consensus with anything, which is why its important to use a little judgement and discrimination. Hell, there are people who try and argue that the holocaust never existed, and one has the feeling that no amount of evidence would ever convince some of them.

The problem with your whole frame of reference is that you don't seem to understand that the ancient world was very different to today's "information age". Very few people were literate. Even fewer had their works published or copied and distributed to the masses. You seem to expect contemporary eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago from a circle of people who were largely fishermen and peasants, who were members of an unsanctioned localised cult, and in a backwater province of Rome! Can you not see how unreasonable it is to expect that? The fact that there are so many surviving original and ancient (if not contemporary) manuscripts relating to Jesus is a testament to the strength of conviction and belief of those who were authoring and distributing the written records that DO exist.

I'm not trying to sell you the religious Jesus. I'm not even a deist. I'm just saying that I think maybe your expectations in terms of historical evidence are a little unreasonable.

As I've already said, the scholastic world generally accepts the existence of the historical Jesus. The loudest voices to the contrary are generally writers of some new sensational book which claims an alternate history. Interestingly enough, most of these writers tend not to subject their work to scrutiny in serious academic journals before publishing. Go figure.