Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

at one time I used to say religion is just something for the weakminded to believe in and Christian specific then one night when I had put down the Colt and picked up a small green Gideons NT (that an American woman from the Plains had given me a few days earlier) and as soon as I began to open the cover I heard an AUDIBLE voice as if sitting to my left that said-my Name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish-AWESTRUCK (not being raised "churched or knowing any scripts) I stood to my feet and said yes Lord-

I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.-John5.25

Christ has indeed been raised from the dead-1Cor15.20

For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.-2Cor5.14

for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."-Eph5.14

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.-1Tim1.15

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.-2Cor3.17

reply to post by No King but Jesus


Firstly, I would say awesome that you had that experience, I would take that as a great sign for you...
But, I have also had great awe-inspiring moments in my life that help me to keep growing. If you use christianity to acomplish that, I think its great. Me, I don't find that ideology beneficial to my growth anymore, maybe I will again one day, who knows.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Yah,

anything to avoid dealing with the fact that there is NO historical evidence for Jesus at all.


K.

Whoa there turbo....
I agree there is no specifically written 1st hand eyewitness acount of a meeting with Jesus in the Bible.
There's a perfectly good explaination of course,..... unless you were a conquering ruler or wealthy, you didnt have throngs of scribes... but your point was well made and taken.



But to claim there is NO historical evidence for Jesus ....lol now that is an entirely different argument.
you sure you wanna derail this thread and go there (thus exposing your agenda)?

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
Whoa there turbo....
I agree there is no specifically written 1st hand eyewitness acount of a meeting with Jesus in the Bible.
There's a perfectly good explaination of course,..... unless you were a conquering ruler or wealthy, you didnt have throngs of scribes

So, your argument is that only conquering rulers or the wealthy were written about?

That is completely false - we have a vast number of references to minor people from the first century.

And,
according to Christians, Jesus was a famous person who had a huge number of followers.

We have numerous books from early Christians - he WAS written about. In letters allegedly from his followers, even his BROTHERS !

But it turns out that all these books were forged by other people who NEVER MET Jesus !

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
But to claim there is NO historical evidence for Jesus ....lol now that is an entirely different argument.

There is no hard and/or contemporary evidence for JESUS.
None.
Which is why you didn't quote any.

What we have is LATER reports repeating Christian BELIEF - but NO hard EVIDENCE for Jesus himself.


Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
Whoa there turbo....
I agree there is no specifically written 1st hand eyewitness acount of a meeting with Jesus in the Bible.
There's a perfectly good explaination of course,..... unless you were a conquering ruler or wealthy, you didnt have throngs of scribes

So, your argument is that only conquering rulers or the wealthy were written about?

That is completely false - we have a vast number of references to minor people from the first century.

And,
according to Christians, Jesus was a famous person who had a huge number of followers.

We have numerous books from early Christians - he WAS written about. In letters allegedly from his followers, even his BROTHERS !

But it turns out that all these books were forged by other people who NEVER MET Jesus !

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
But to claim there is NO historical evidence for Jesus ....lol now that is an entirely different argument.

There is no hard and/or contemporary evidence for JESUS.
None.
Which is why you didn't quote any.

What we have is LATER reports repeating Christian BELIEF - but NO hard EVIDENCE for Jesus himself.


Kap

Christ had almost no followers while he was alive... There were only 12 - and most of them probably didn't write.

That's what I meant by so many who were illiterate. If I'm at a city and Jesus walks in, heals some folks and preforms a bunch of miracles - but I'm illiterate... guess what I'm NOT doing: writing about it.

And even if I did - lets say I kept a journal... did my personal journal make it 2000 years? Probably not.

This is what I mean. When someone writes: "At that time Jesus came to the town of bla bla bla...." And they are trying to record the history of the man they probably are not writing from the first person perspective, especially if they're simply recording the story for someone else (cough cough: an illiterate person who as giving a first person account).

That's what I mean by looking for holes. Rather than reading something and trying to figure out how it could very well be a first hand account of Christ - you're looking for how it could NOT be.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
This is a thread about historical figures who actually met a historical Jesus.

Any historical figures or present figures who claim to have met Jesus you would have to take their word for it. So even if some of the authors of those books were some of the actual disciples you'd still have to take their word for it.

Originally posted by Kapyong


So, your argument is that only conquering rulers or the wealthy were written about?

That is completely false - we have a vast number of references to minor people from the first century.

No that is not what i said.
you are altering my words to fit into your agenda.
please do not do that again.
If you cannot acurately quote me, then please refrain from your imaginary debate.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
But to claim there is NO historical evidence for Jesus ....lol now that is an entirely different argument.

There is no hard and/or contemporary evidence for JESUS.
None.
Which is why you didn't quote any.

What we have is LATER reports repeating Christian BELIEF - but NO hard EVIDENCE for Jesus himself.


Kap

back with evidence after supper.. and we will then apply said evidence to several other "historical figures".
if the evidence for them is suffiient, then it will stand for Jesus.
BTW, Im not a religeous person, I just do not enjoy seeing agendas pushed by trolls.
prepare to accept a dose of your own logic.... and don't run edit your previous posts.

* hint: if it's good enough for you to use, it's good enough for me, and you shouldnt get butt-hurt 'kay?

While Im eating my steak, could you please provide a list of 2000+ year old first hand acounts of anyone meeting religeous icons, political leaders, etc showing that first hand documentation was the order of the day during that time period.
we dont wanna be looking for something that just isnt going to be there.
I mean, at least get some substance to your postition.

Originally posted by Bad Ninja

Originally posted by Kapyong
So, your argument is that only conquering rulers or the wealthy were written about?
That is completely false - we have a vast number of references to minor people from the first century.

No that is not what i said.
you are altering my words to fit into your agenda.
please do not do that again.
If you cannot acurately quote me, then please refrain from your imaginary debate.

YOU SAID :
"I agree there is no specifically written 1st hand eyewitness acount of a meeting with Jesus in the Bible.
There's a perfectly good explaination of course,..... unless you were a conquering ruler or wealthy, you didnt have throngs of scribes... but your point was well made and take".

YOUR explanation for Jesus not being written about was :
"unless you were a conquering ruler or wealthy, you didnt have throngs of scribes"

which directly implies that only "conquering ruler(s) or wealthy" people were written about.

If you didn't mean that, then what was the point?

It does NOT take "throngs of scribes" to be written about - which was clearly your point.

Now you try and pretend that was NOT your point, but you conspicuously fail to indicate what you point WAS !

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
back with evidence after supper.. and we will then apply said evidence to several other "historical figures".

WTF?

We have all sort of evidence for various people from the 1st century - vasy amounts, for MANY people.

So what?
We DON'T have that for Jesus.

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
if the evidence for them is suffiient, then it will stand for Jesus.

WHAT?
How can eveidence for SOMEONE ELSE stand as evidence for Jesus?!
This makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
BTW, Im not a religeous person, I just do not enjoy seeing agendas pushed by trolls. prepare to accept a dose of your own logic.... and don't run edit your previous posts.

Why can't you provide any HISTORICAL EVIDENCE for Jesus then?

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
* hint: if it's good enough for you to use, it's good enough for me, and you shouldnt get butt-hurt 'kay?

WTF are you talking about?
This is silly.
You don't have ANY evidence, do you?


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by Bad Ninja
While Im eating my steak, could you please provide a list of 2000+ year old first hand acounts of anyone meeting religeous icons, political leaders, etc ...

Sure,
how about Cicero accounts of meeting Caesar's 1st hand :



Personal acquaintance by Cicero :

Cicero, Letters :
XV
To P. LENTTJLUS SPINTHER (IN CILICIA)
ROME (OCTOBER)

"Here I was greatly influenced by two things the old friendship which you know that I and my brother Quintus have had with Caesar, and his own kindness and liberality, of which we have recently had clear and mistakable evidence both by his letters and his personal attentions.
...An additional motive was Caesar's memorable and almost superhuman kindness to myself and my brother,"

Cicero mentions here :
* his FRIENDSHIP with Caesar
(* letters from Caesar to Cicero)
* Caesar's PERSONAL ATTENTION
* Caesar's kindness to him and his brother


There are many many such examples which show a direct personal meeting with Caesar :

"Again, later on, there followed a very pressing request from Caesar that I should undertake his defence."

Caesar asks Cicero to defend him.


"And yet I was very intimate with Caesar,"

Cicero was intimate with Caesar.


"all the more so now that Caesar daily receives me with more open arms, while his intimate friends distinguish me above everyone."

Caesar received Cicero with open arms.


"Now omens as to the future are observed by me in what I may call a twofold method: the one I deduce from Caesar himself, the other from the nature and complexion of the political situation. Caesar's characteristics are these: a disposition naturally placable and clement--as delineated in your brilliant book of "Grievances"--and a great liking also for superior talent, such as your own. Besides this, he is relenting at the expressed wishes of a large number of your friends, which are well-grounded and inspired by affection."

Cicero observed Caesar's character.


"On this head I am always struck with astonishment at Caesar's sobriety, fairness, and wisdom. He never speaks of Pompey except in the most respectful terms. "But," you will say, "in regard to him as a public man his actions have often been bitter enough.""

Cicero describes how Caesar talks of Pompey.


"Also--for I like to jot down things as they occur to me--that when on the request of Sestius I went to Caesar's house, and was sitting waiting till I was called in, he remarked: "Can I doubt that I am exceedingly disliked, when Marcus Cicero has to sit waiting and cannot see me at his own convenience? And yet if there is a good-natured man in the world it is he; still I feel no doubt that he heartily dislikes me.""

Cicero recounts a MEETING with Caesar.


So,
there are MANY such examples, but -
you've never ever studied this subject at all, have you Bad Ninja ?


But NOT ONE SINGLE Christian claimed to have met the God-man FOUNDER of their OWN religion !




Kap

Originally posted by gncnew
Christ had almost no followers while he was alive... There were only 12 - and most of them probably didn't write.

Not according to the Bible - which said he attracted 100, even thousands of followers.

Originally posted by gncnew
That's what I meant by so many who were illiterate. If I'm at a city and Jesus walks in, heals some folks and preforms a bunch of miracles - but I'm illiterate... guess what I'm NOT doing: writing about it.

But strangely we DO have many books CLAIMED to be by Jesus' followers.

Originally posted by gncnew
And even if I did - lets say I kept a journal... did my personal journal make it 2000 years? Probably not.

Many books from 2000 years ago DID survive.
Including many books by early CHRISTIANS.
Some CLAIMED to be by eye-witnesses.
But they are not.

Originally posted by gncnew
This is what I mean. When someone writes: "At that time Jesus came to the town of bla bla bla...." And they are trying to record the history of the man they probably are not writing from the first person perspective, especially if they're simply recording the story for someone else (cough cough: an illiterate person who as giving a first person account).

Um,
"Probably not writing from 1st person perspective?"
What is your point?

Originally posted by gncnew
That's what I mean by looking for holes. Rather than reading something and trying to figure out how it could very well be a first hand account of Christ - you're looking for how it could NOT be.

There are NO "1st hand accounts" of Jesus.
Just some FORGERIES.

A god-man who founded a religion, collected 1000s of followers, left teachings and prayers, travelled the region - and NO-ONE claimed to have met him !

It's clearly a myth.


Kap

Originally posted by soleprobe

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
This is a thread about historical figures who actually met a historical Jesus.

Any historical figures or present figures who claim to have met Jesus you would have to take their word for it. So even if some of the authors of those books were some of the actual disciples you'd still have to take their word for it.

Well,
DID any of them make such a CLAIM, soleprobe ?

No.

There are NO such claims.

Making comments about what we might do IF there were such claims is pointless.

Jesus allegely started a religion and attracted large numbers of followers, and many of them wrote books - but NOT ONE of them claimed to have met Jesus.

He was a myth.


Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong
Hi all,
I thought this deserved a new thread after it came up in another -
Kapyong

I heard that all this doubting started with a German scholar in the 1800's
www.vanderbilt.edu...

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
I heard that all this doubting started with a German scholar in the 1800's
www.vanderbilt.edu...

Well,
you heard wrong...

The doubts started as far back as the early Christians :


2 John warns of some Christians who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".


Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :

“Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”

“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”

“Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour ... [who] independent of birth, Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues.”


Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"


Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.

"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -


Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :

"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"


Caius, claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified from the late 2nd century :

"For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ..."


Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :

"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”


Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :

"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".

Julian was “convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”


Doubts about Jesus being a real physical person started from the EARLIEST times.



Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong
Well,
you heard wrong...

No, your wrong. I'm talking about your topic.
From the article:
"Although the majority of 19th-century questers felt that the historical Jesus was significantly different from the portraits of the Gospels, some were more conservative. Alfred Edersheim was one of these scholars. He believed that scholars' radical conclusions about Jesus were the product of their worldview rather than a critical approach to history. He had faith that the Gospels relate reliable history and were written by those to whom authorship is traditionally ascribed."

Can't you read English tex?

YOU claimed the doubts started in 1800s.

I proved you wrong by showing examples of doubts from the EARLY CHRISTIANS themselves.

Naturally,
you ignored the evidence and repeated your false claim.

But your quote does NOT say anything about doubt starting in the 1800s and it IGNORES the evidence I quoted of doubts from the early Christians.

Feel free to ignore all the evidence I quote,
feel free to keep right on preaching ...


Kap



[edit on 13-6-2010 by Kapyong]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Can't you read English tex?
YOU claimed the doubts started in 1800s.
I proved you wrong by showing examples of doubts from the EARLY CHRISTIANS themselves.
Naturally,
you ignored the evidence and repeated your false claim.
But your quote does NOT say anything about doubt starting in the 1800s and it IGNORES the evidence I quoted of doubts from the early Christians.
Feel free to ignore all the evidence I quote,
feel free to keep right on preaching ...
Kap
[edit on 13-6-2010 by Kapyong]

Your wrong again.
Did u read the article? 19th century is the 1800's, it's on the first line of the part of the article I posted.
It seems that there are two camps about the historical Jesus.
Those aren't early Christians. They are early unbelievers.
Your evidence is continued pre-digested pablum from worldview people than those with a critical approach to history.

Celsus
Now all we know about Celsus comes from the writings of Origen, a second century Christian author (185CE-254CE) and in "Contra Celsus by" Origen we have the following quote:

[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."...

www.bluffton.edu...

I think this is highly strange for Celsus is stating that Jesus was a real man and his mother was convicted of adultery. To me this sames like a strange kind of logic:
1. Poster states Jesus was a myth.
2. Poster uses statement that says Jesus was real to indicate Christian beliefs of virgin birth attacked.
3. But attacks on virgin birth beliefs indicate that Jesus was a historical figure and his mother committed adultery.

Well that particular fellow is saying the whole story of Jesus is a myth and a fabrication. Therefore any statements (such as from Celsus) which refers to a historical Jesus must also be a fabrication. Yet he uses a misquote to of Origen's commentary about Celsus to give the impression that Celsus labeled the whole story of Jesus as a myth. However Celsus' comment of dubious birth indicates that Celsus must have considered Jesus as being a real person.

Marcion of Sinope
Almost every thing we know about Maricon was written by his detractors None of his original writings survive ("Marcion, then, is known only through his critics, who considered his doctrines a deviation from orthodox Christianity"). Maricon never treated Jesus as a myth. He considered the appearance of Jesus as an entity which had the look and feel of being a body but was actually a spirirtual being. In other words Jesus looked like any other man to a people (including the Romans). ("But Marcion taught that Christ assumed absolutely nothing from the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven in the I5th year of the Emperor Tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began his preaching in the synagogue of Capernaum.")

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
ontruth.com...
www.gnosis.org...

Minucius Felix

Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.

This statement is a bold misreprestation of what Minucius Fexlix wrote. This statement was copied from "The Octavius of Minucius Felix" which was written ("written in the form of a dialogue between the pagan Caecilius Natalis and the Christian Octavius Januarius, a provincial lawyer, the friend and fellow-student of the author.")

The statement:

"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -

was a contention advanced by the pagan Caecilius Natalis in his criticism of Christianity. To which the Christian Octavius Janarius replied:

"These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves. For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man.

Caius

"For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ..."

Another blatant misrepresentation of what was written. This snippet came from "AGAINST THE HERESY OF ARTEMON" by Caius:

For they say that all those of the first age, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which these men now maintain; and that the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter, and that from his successor Zephyrinus the truth was falsified. And perhaps what they allege might be credible, did not the Holy Scriptures, in the first place, contradict them. And then, besides, there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote against the heathen in defence of the truth, and against the heresies of their time: I mean Justin and Miltiades, and Tatian and Clement, and many others, in all which divinity is ascribed to Christ. For who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man? All the psalms, too, and hymns of brethren, which have been written from the beginning by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God, ascribing divinity to Him. Since the doctrine of the Church, then, has been proclaimed so many years ago, how is it possible that men have preached, up to the time of Victor, in the manner asserted by these? And how are they not ashamed to utter these calumnies against Victor, knowing well that Victor excommunicated Theodotus the tanner, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, who first affirmed that Christ was a mere man? For if, as they allege, Victor entertained the very opinions which their blasphemy teaches, how should he have cast off Theodotus, the author of this heresy?

www.earlychristianwritings.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by texastig
Your wrong again. Did u read the article? 19th century is the 1800's, it's on the first line of the part of the article I posted.

Yes, the 1800s is the 19th century.

And your claim that doubts started only in the 1800s is proven false by the evidence of early Christians and others who doubted. Not that you will ever admit it.

Originally posted by texastig
It seems that there are two camps about the historical Jesus.
Those aren't early Christians. They are early unbelievers.

I posted evidence of Christians and pagans who doubted Jesus existed.

Proving your claim wrong.

Doubts about Jesus go back to the earliest times, not from 1800s as YOU claimed.

Of course, now you try and change the subject rather than admit you were wrong.


Kap

I just leave this here:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"


And as you don't know first-hand accounts of people who knows me, therefore I'm an imaginary member of this board.

¿Why the disciples will be martyrs of a big lie?

The historical Jesus needs not only first hand accounts but common sense over the human behavior too.

If we use your logic, then anyone would be saying:

"show me first hand accounts of people telling how jesus was a fabricated tale", contemporary witnesses . I wont read any other claim !.

What is completely absurd at any discussion

-----

If you don't get any answers here, you only could say "There's no historical evidence of Jesus". Nothing more... because if you suggest that he is fictional, then according to that logic , i could say "there's no historical evidence that Jesus was invented so, Jesus is historical an real" ... what in the end leave us right here in a useless waste of time.






[edit on 14-6-2010 by ozzraven]

[edit on 14-6-2010 by ozzraven]