Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

That is probably the biggest lie of all.
Essentially you sound like an evangelical christian apologist.
There is little, if any, first-hand knowledge of Jesus. Everything came after his supposed time.

You make claims of evangelical faith but faith is neither fact nor true and the fact and truth is that there is a remarkable dearth of evidence for a historical Jesus.
The bible is composed not of eyewitness accounts, but of imaginings and hopes. Then there is the question of which bible as there are more than one.

Of course, you are entitled to believe what you will, just as I am, but when faith masquerades as fact, then I will speak up.

Gday,



Like I said - we DO have many books from that period describing many people.

And,
we DO have quite a few books from Christians.

So why do NONE of them claim to have met Jesus?
Nor Mary, nor Joseph etc.

This was the founder of the religion, and no-one met him ?!

You'd think accounts of meeting Jesus (or Mary) would make a Christian highly influential (we DO see forged claims like this,) but all we have is STORIES from unknown hands, and CLAIMS and BELIEFS of people who met Jesus.

Jude, James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2,3 John - all forged by unknown people who never met Jesus.

But not one single Christian ever met Jesus - how do you explain that ?

Not one single authentic claim to have met Jesus even by Christians !



K.

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct

---

Yes, John baptised Jesus.

So here is Jesus, and here is John.

Jesus Lives.

And if you need proof, oh well, find it.

Gday,



Really?
Not according to the Gospel of John.
How do you explain that?

And how do you explain the fact that Christians CHANGED the alleged words of God at the baptism?

Early copies say :
"this is my beloved son, this day have I begotten thee".

But now our copies say :
"this is my beloved son, in thee I am well please".

(Some Christian, like Epiphanius, give BOTH lines.)

This is clear evidence of story making, not history.


K.

You are wrong.
And if you need proof, oh well, find it.

Is that a convincing claim?
No?

Then why did you make it?


K.

Yeah, and the vast majority of written records from that era are works which were comissioned by significant persons: rulers, conquerers, and otherwise rich and influential people who patronised scribes to relate their "great deeds", or make a record of significant histoical events, or for book-keeping/accounting/taking stock.

Like I said, people who could write and who had money to burn on vellum and parchment were few when compared to the masses of illiterate and poor of that era.



I don't know the answer to this. It's been 2000 years. Looking at it rationally, it is far more likely that any such written testament would be lost, rather than survive to the 21st century. The fact that the many original manuscripts we DO have concerning Jesus have survived (including parts of the Dead Sea scrolls of Qumran) is quite mindboggling.

Ask yourself this: Why do we not have any accounts of people who met Genghis Khan? He was far more significant in his time than Jesus. In the first century AD, Jesus was little more than a cult leader and a criminal in the eyes of the majority of his contemporaries. Genghis Khan was, in his own lifetime, the greatest conquerer that the world had ever known. The lack of eyewitness testimony of Genghis Khan is FAR more bizarre than the lack of one relating to Jesus.

And why would anyone write about Mary and Joseph at the time, and why would you reasonably expect those writings to be passed on generation through generation for 2000 years? That doesn't make sense at all.



Again, you are looking at this through 21st century eyes. The significance of Christianity as a world-changing phenomenon was certainly not known in the early years of the first century. The cult was unsanctioned, underground, and at times downright illegal. Having met Jesus actually made life very dangerous for people, rather than lift them in the social order. So it is actually the reverse of what you said, in my opinion.

Remember, Jesus himself was only really significant to those who regarded him as the Messiah and Son of God, and as I have already said, most of those were common folk. Tacitus and Pliny (two ancient secular historicans) only make note of him as the leader of a criminal cult, not the Son of God, obviously.



Forged? Huh? Just because an author's lineage, context and historicity are not verified doesn't necessarily make a document "forged". Unless you know something I don't, of course.

Enthusiastic Christians over the years have tried to attribute various books to various Biblical personalities, but modern scholarship has debunked a lot of it.



Not one single Christian that we know and whose written testimony has survived 2000 years. Correct.

Again, I refer you to the Genghis Khan example for context. HE had access to plenty of money for scribes (as opposed to Jesus' fishermen) and accounts related to Genghis would have only had to survive for 800 years - much less time. It is far more unlikely a situation that we have no eyewitness accounts of him as a historical person.

The fact that the Gospel of John is not a facsimile of the other Gospels indicates that it has a different source and author. This actually strengthens its corroborative value rather than detracting from it.

The Gospel of John also doesn't including Jesus going to the toilet. This doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

I am not a Christian. That being said, it seems foolish to state that the Christian Bible's depictions of Jesus are 100% fabricated.

Whether a man existed who was born of a virgin who could turn water into wine, make blind people see, and raise the dead is a question of faith that may never be scientifically proven. However, it seems logical to conclude that there was at least one person in Judea at the time that was preaching at least some or all of the lessons that appear in the Christian Bible.

It is possible that only some of the content in the Christian Bible truly came from Jesus, and the rest was later added by the writers of the Gospels. It is possible that Jesus is really a composite character who is based on one or more real people who preached a similar message. It is also highly likely the Gospels contain embelishments, exagerations, and historical falsehoods.

Nevertheless, we cannot deny that the Christian Bible has at least some kernel of historical truth. I cannot tell you whether the Christian Bilbe, or the entire Bible for that matter, is 99.9% true of only 10% true. Nevertheless, it is foolish and intellectually dishonest to say that is is 100% untrue.

The big question is not whether Jesus existed, but how he existed. Was he one man or a composite of several figures? How did his real preachings differ from those attributed to him in the Bible? Was he a Jew living in Judea or a person of a different racial group or iving in a different land? What events did he really experience? Was he crucified?

Perhaps these are the questions we should be debating, not whether the Christian Bible is a complete fabrication or 100% truthful.

Gday,



Yes, it appears I do know something you don't.
The fact that modern NT scholars agree they are all forgeries.


K.

Gday,



No it doesn't.
It contradicts, not corroborates.

For example :

In John, there is NO Passover meal, Jesus is crucified on the Day of Preparation.

In the other Gospels, there IS a Passover meal know called the Last Supper, and Jesus is crucified on the day of Passover.

Got that?

John's Gospel disagrees on the DATE of the crucifixion and gives a different story (NO last supper, Jesus is an allegory for the lambs being sacrificed.)

They are completely different stories.

Not to mention the errors such as including the expulsion from the synagogues in Jesus lifetime - when it occured over 1/2 a century later.

The glaring differences between G.John and the others show that none of it can be seen as accurate history.


K.

Gday,



Yes, we all agree on that.

The issue is whether Jesus existed. you haven't even touched on that point.

Would you care to post some argument for why you think Jesus existed?




Glad we agree.
Good thing no-one here has done that.




No it isn't.
The question here is whether Jesus existed.

Do you have any evidence and argument that he did?

So far, all you did was claim it MIGHT be true.
So what?

When we look at the evidence for Jesus, we see it is weak, late, suspect, and/or forged.

Jesus belongs with :
* Adam, Moses, Krishna, Dionysus, Orisis, Hercules, Zoroaster etc.

A mythical god-man.

But tragically, this religion came to dominate for a millenium and a half, so anyone who doubted Jesus was KILLED at the stake.

Finally, we are coming out of the long dark nightmare of the church, and we see people increasingly coming to realise Jesus was a myth.


K.

...and Genghis Khan along with them?

I note that you didn't respond to the majority of my post.



What on earth do you think was happening in John 13 then? Sorry mate, you're wrong.




Completely different?

Bit of an exageration there...

Check out Luke 22:15, Matthew 26:18.

The Last Supper is certainly a Passover meal, but it is not restricted to the 15th of Nisan. Jesus actually explains that he wants to celebrate the meal with his disciples before he dies. He was obviously in a hurry. He would have been well within his rights as the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8, and therefore Lord of the Passover) to move it up a day. I think it's pretty clear from his words that this is exactly what he did. John, therefore does not necessarily contradict the others at all.

The case for such a contradiction is not strong at all and, in any case, if that's the best argument you can put forward (ie: one day's difference in events that occurred 2000 years ago) for the Gospels being "completely different", I feel you might have to reach further.

Genghis Khan still?
You're kidding?

Let's see :
we DO have an eye-witness account of Genghis Khan sacking Peking :
books.google.com.au... 7g&hl=en&ei=36h7SpO-JYfq6APmwOUs&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

No eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

And,
we also have a detailed eye-witness account of his son Kublai Khan:
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

No eye-witness accounts of ANY of Jesus's family.


And,
we have PICTURES of Genghis Khan.

No pictures of Jesus

And,
we have personal descriptions of Genghis Khan.

No descriptions of Jesus


Genghis Kahn was a warrior who destroyed and raped and pillaged - we have vast amounts of direct evidence of that :

* archeological evidence of his battles

* genetic evidence of his family line

Gengis Khan left behind exactly what we would expect - including eye-witness accounts and hard evidence.

Jesus left nothing like that.

Yet Jesus was allegedly a TEACHER, a preacher, a man of wise words and powerful acts.

A teacher - and no-one recorded hearing him personally.

A preacher - yet Christians couldn't remember his Lord's Prayer correctly (the are many versions including two different ones in the Gospels.)

A man of wise words - yet NONE of the literate communities surrounding him (Roman, Jewish, various pagans) noticed his wisdom.

All we have is a set of BOOKS which arose anonymously which LATER Christians came to believe.

But the entire 1st generation of Christians - Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc. - went completely un-noticed by anyone.

Not a single Christian records meeting them - and we know such a claim would give tremendous respect, because we see forged claims of exactly that!

2 Peter fraudulently claimed to have met Jesus

G.John has a desperate 3rd hand claim of authenticity.

G.Luke has a similar claim to have been based on what was handed down from eye-witness.

Anyone who HAD met Jesus would be famous amongst Christians

Any claims to have met Jesus would have great weight.

Any books from an eye-witness to Jesus would be treasured.

But we see NONE of that.

It is obvious that no-one ever met Jesus or anyone else in the Gospels stories.

Not even a single Christian ever met Jesus.



K.

You've got the temerity to talk about Genghis Khan's legacy* as being "exactly what we would expect" and yet you refuse to accept the vast legacy of the historical person known as Jesus Christ as legit because the historians didn't go into intricate detail about this underground cult-leader's life and times?

It's become clear to me that this whole discussion serves nothing more than a personal agenda.

The historicity of Jesus has been long established and accepted by modern scholarship. I'll leave you to your unrealistic expectations of the humble, illiterate, contemporaries of Jesus. Clearly they should have done better.

Again, there is a very basic principle at play here about the absence of evidence not necessitating the evidence of absence.

It's been interesting. Ciao.

* The portrait of Genghis Khan was created 50-60 years after his death, coincidentally around the same span of time after Jesus' death when the first accounts of his life appeared. Additionally, the description given by Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani (who claimed to have seen Genghis Khan) contradicts with the other descriptions of the man!