The conspiracy of the historical Jesus

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
I (a ignorant Christian slut) would like to poise the following points:

1. The reason we have many copies of Josephus and Tacitus is because of Christian scribes. Now if I were a scribe in a monastery intent of making a forgery in Josephus (other than some interpolation, or "tweaking"), you best believe that whole pages would have been dedicated to the life of Jesus. Hence these passages do bear the "ring of authenticity". No serious Christian scholar denies that there are interpolations (such as "He was the Christ") in Josephus, but the critics claim that the passages are complete forgeries does not hold water either.

Why?
It's obviously CORRUPT, so you have no idea whether it was based on anything.

This passage is the best evidence for Jesus, and it's clearly TAMPERED with. Evidence that has been tampered with is useless.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
2. The skeptics like to make the "argument based on silence" (since the claim that no contemporary secular references to Jesus exist implies that Jesus was a myth). We will make our own "argument based on silence". By 64CE, Christianity have enough followers in Rome for Nero to take notice of them and blame the fire of Rome on them.

The evidence for this is weak and late. It is not likely to be true.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
In other areas, they were getting the reputation of being "trouble makers". If there was a hint that Jesus was a mythical figure, then surely some secular source would have mentioned something on the order "these loonies believe in some guy who never existed". Indeed the lack of such statements in the Jewish Talmud are telling:

Can you name ONE SINGLE examples of the ancients rejecting ANY MYTH as not existing?

Did anyone claim Osiris didn't exist?
Did anyone claim Adam didn't exist?
Did anyone claim Aesculapius didn't exist?
Did anyone claim Hercules didn't exist?
Did anyone claim Bacchus didn't exist?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.

This was a time of superstitious gullibility - almost NO-ONE ever doubted the existance of any god-men from that time.

Why would you expect it for Jesus?

But -
what we DO see is a many claims that the stories are :
"based on myth"
"fiction"
"superstition"
"invented"

We also see Christians who do NOT believe Jesus ever came in the feslh.

In other words - we see exactly what we would expect for a mythical god-man story :

* some say he never came at all
* critics say it's fiction and superstition.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
While contemporary secular references to Jesus are slim by today's standards (there isn't that much for Tacitus either), where is the contemporary secular source which states that Jesus did not exist? Indeed by 64CE, Roman authorities (Nero) had taken some note of the existence of Christians. This indicates enough Christians in Rome at that time to appear "dangerous" to the rest of the population. Surely there would have been at least one Roman historian (or other source) to state that these "Christian loonies" believed in some guy who never existed.

Um -
some CHRISTIANS claimed Jesus never came in the flesh!
Felix claims Christians do NOT worship a man on a cross.
Other Christians detail Christian beliefs WITHOUT ANY mention of Jesus.
Some Christians claim Jesus was a PHANTOM

Did you not even know that?

And the Gospel stories did not become known until early-mid 2nd century - after 2 wars and several decades - how could anyone KNOW that Jesus didn't exist?

They couldn't.

But - what we DO see is every kind of criticism and dismissal that was common for that time.

Christian stories WERE rejected as soon as they became known - which was LONG LONG after the alleged events.

There is NOTHING in the early works like Paul to reject!



K.

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Excuse me for my slut ignorance,

Why do you keep calling yourself an ignorant slut ?
Why?

Originally posted by jagdflieger
but I thought that no manuscripts of Josephus dated before the 10th century CE have been discovered. Evidently you know of a manuscript which can be dated before the fourth century. Is this a new discovery?

Did you really not know that OTHER writers referred to Josephus BEFORE the 10th century?


K.

reply to post by Kapyong


The reason I call myself "ignorant slut" is that is what I have been called by atheists.

Did you really not know that OTHER writers referred to Josephus BEFORE the 10th century?

As with your response which is intended as an insult. Also the posting to which you replied was not directed to you but was intended for explanation for the following statement:

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity – the first century of the Christian era – yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky. All references – including the notorious insertions in Josephus – stem from Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion). The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-packaged for the needs of the early Church.

What is the evidence that "the Josephus paragraph about Jesus" does not appear until the fourth century. The statement certainly implies that the poster who made this claim knows of a copy of Josephus dating from before the fourth century; otherwise how can he make this claim.

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
The reason I call myself "ignorant slut" is that is what I have been called by atheists.

How bizarre.
What does that have to do with this thread?
I'm not an atheist, and no-one called you an "ignorant slut" here apartf rom you.

As if Christians never insult their critics, right ?

As with your response which is intended as an insult.

No,
it was to point out that you are unaware of key facts -
such as the fact that earlier writers refer to Josephus,
which is how we know about his works BEFORE the earliest mss.

Is this so hard to follow?

Originally posted by jagdflieger
What is the evidence that "the Josephus paragraph about Jesus" does not appear until the fourth century. The statement certainly implies that the poster who made this claim knows of a copy of Josephus dating from before the fourth century; otherwise how can he make this claim.

You still don't seem to grasp this simple point :

Earlier writers refer to Josephus and sometimes quote what he wrote - that's how we can see it CHANGED - because earlier references are different to later ones.

For instance - Origen refers to Josephus' comments, and he specifically says Josephus does NOT call Jesus "Messiah". That is how we know the passage has been CHANGED to add the "Messiah" reference.

This is all based on references in early writers - NOTHING to do with manuscripts.

Please indicate you understand this now.


K.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Fascinating. Are you suggesting that the OP will get divine evidence of the existence of Jesus as a human being who lived on the Earth?

I didn't mean to suggest, I mean to state that the OP can get divine evidence of the existence of Jesus as a human being who lived on the Earth in addition to Jesus as the son of God who lives with God.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Of course, if he never achieves a proper level of faith, then he won't. Am I correct?

Sorry, there are no levels. You are either a believer or you are not a believer. Like lightning in the sky, either you have seen it or you have not. In either case, lightning exists.

Originally posted by NorEaster
My brother uses this absurd argument as well. Reality is not impacted by faith. Perception is but then perception is not true reality.

I would agree that reality is not impacted by faith and perception isn't always true reality. Sometimes however, perception is reality. It's our tasks to discern the difference between gossip (visual or otherwise) and fact.

Originally posted by NorEaster
The heroic God-man narrative is one of the most enduring gifts from one human era to the next. The Jesus version is all of 2,000 years old. Successful, but not remarkably so. Then again, a lot of blood and treasure went into establishing and securing it. The payout has been worth it though. One of the more profitable ventures in human history.

I assure you have no stake in treasure or payout, nor care about the sums others who may have received because of the event. Test that if you like.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by saint4God]

Originally posted by NorEaster
Trying to suggest that a verse from the bible can be used to verify the accuracy of the bible - of course - is ludicrous. Doing so seriously cripples your effectiveness in this debate.

Ah, so I'm allowed to throw out whatever document you bring to the table merely because I don't agree with it? Hardly seems fair. 'Is it valid or is it not?', that's the next question. I answered the OP's concern accurately and correctly, review it again if necessary.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Did you know that the historical existence of Peter can't actually be independently proven either?

Do you have proof that he did not exist? I have documentation by him that says he did. Specifically tell me, who wrote it?

Originally posted by NorEaster
Believe what you want and you're entitled to your faith, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

We both know this is the case for both of us, please don't suggest we live in two different Earths.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by saint4God]

Originally posted by jagdflieger
The reason I call myself "ignorant slut" is that is what I have been called by atheists.

We all have the right to choose our own labels, be careful then accepting the labels others give to us. Remember also that because one or even a few call you something, doesn't mean all of that belief think that you are also. Those who cast false labels upon others will find themselves sooner or later the subject of disheartening judgement.


[edit on 23-4-2010 by saint4God]

Gday,

Originally posted by saint4God
Do you have proof that he did not exist? I have documentation by him that says he did. Specifically tell me, who wrote it?

In fact we have a book forged in the 2nd century.

It's actually the MOST SUSPECT book of all the NT - the most obviously forged.

A forged book that claims :
"oh no, we don't follow fantastic fables"

Right when critics were attacking Christians as believing fables and myths and superstition and invented (and when some Christians were still claiming Jesus never came in the flesh at all.)

It's obvious - this person forged this book to respond to claims that Christians believed in fables.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
In fact we have a book forged in the 2nd century.

It's actually the MOST SUSPECT book of all the NT - the most obviously forged.

Indulge me by providing some support.

Originally posted by Kapyong
A forged book that claims :
"oh no, we don't follow fantastic fables"

Your proof? Or are you taking guesses now?

Religious individuals are JUST TOO LAZY to research the truth. As long as they think that their NONSENSE beliefs will get them to some eternal paradise, they dont care what GARBAGE they are fed.

There is a SIGNIFICANT MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE... REPEAT, SIGNIFICANT MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE, AGAINST the reality of their fairy tale nonsense and characters. Even a young child can see the nonsense behind it all as long as the child WASN'T CORRUPTED by that nonsense yet.

So as far as the foolish are concerned, they are either TOO LAZY and concerned ONLY with its FALSE heaven promise, or its the effects of a serious MENTAL DISORDER.





[edit on 23-4-2010 by Captain_Sense]

Gday,

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Kapyong
In fact we have a book forged in the 2nd century.
It's actually the MOST SUSPECT book of all the NT - the most obviously forged.

Indulge me by providing some support.

Well, I have done so numerous times before,
but here it is again :

"Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4):

1. The literary dependence on Jude rules this out. II Pet 1 and 3 already have a number of contacts with Jude: cf. II Pet 1:5 with Jude 3; II Pet 1:12 with Jude 5; II Pet 3:2 f with Jude 17 f; II Pet 3:14 with Jude 24; II Pet 3:18 with Jude 25. The most striking agreements with Jude are shown in the portrayal of the false teachers in II Pet 2 and also in the illustrations based on the OT and the pictures drawn from nature, agreements in the exact wording and extensive agreements in sequence. The false teachers deny the Lord Christ and lead a dissolute life (II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4), they despise and blaspheme the good angelic powers (II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 f), they speak in high-handed fashion (υπερογκα; II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16), they are blotches on the communal meal (σπιγοι συνευωχωμενοι; II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12), they are clouds tossed about by the wind, devoid of water, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved (II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 f), they are denounced for their fleshly corruption and their unrestrained mode of life (II Pet 2:10, 12 ff, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16). The sequence of examples of punishment from the OT in Jude 5 ff (Israel in the desert, fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah) is arranged in historical order in II Pet 2:4 ff and modified (fallen angels, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) because the author of II Pet needs the example of the Flood to combat the deniers of the parousia. The general statement in II Pet 2:11 makes sense only if note has been made of the concrete example mentioned in Jude 9. The image in Jude 12 f is more genuine and more plastic than the parallel in II Pet 2:17.

This material shows, therefore, that it is II Pet which is the dependent factor. It is further to be observed that the quotation from a noncanonical writing (Jude 14 f = the Apocalypse of Enoch 1:9; 60:8) is lacking in II Pet, and that by omitting certain essential features the allusions to the apocryphal writings have been somewhat obscured in Jude 6 (fallen angels) and 9 (the struggle between the archangel Michael and the Devil). From this it may be concluded that II Pet is already reluctant to use this literature whereas Jude has a naive attitude toward it. II Pet betrays a literary strategem in that the false teachers who are characterized by Jude as being in the present are depicted in II Pet as future and indeed predicted by Peter (2:1 ff, in the future; 3:3, 17 προγινωσκοντεσ). But in spite of this they are also described in the present tense (2:10, 12 ff, 20), and indeed the past tense is used (2:15, 22). Consequently it is almost universally recognized today that II Pet is dependent on Jude and not the reverse. Then II Pet 3:3 ff portrays the libertines as the deniers of the parousia. In this way he representes a more developed stage, while a less developed stage is evident in Jude, who does not yet know that the false teachers against whom he directs his attention might have denied the parousia. Since Jude belongs in the postapostolic age, Peter cannot have written II Pet.

2. The conceptual world and the rhetorical language are so strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely, nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the apostle.

The Hellenistic concepts include: the αρετη of God (1:3), virtue in addition to faith (1:5); knowledge (1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20; 3:18); participation in the divine nature (θειασ κοινωνοι φυσεωσ) "in order that one might escape corruption that is present in the world because of lust" (1:4); the term εποπται comes from the language of the mysteries (1:16); placed side by side are a quotation from Proverbs and a trite saying from the Hellenistic tradition (2:22).

3. The letter has a keen interest in opposing the denial of the Christians' expectation of the parousia. 1:12 ff already deals with the hope of the parousia, which is based on the fact of the transfiguration of Jesus and the OT prophecy. In 3:3 ff there is a direct polemic against those who deny the parousia. These ask scornfully, "Where is the promise of the parousia of Christ?" and draw attention to the fact that since the fathers have fallen asleep everything remains as it has been from the beginning of creation (3:4). In I Clem 23:3 f and II Clem 11:2 ff too, there is adduced a writing which was obviously read in Christian circles, in which is laid down the challenge "We have already heard that in the days of our fathers, but look, we are become old and nothing of that has happened to us." I Clem was written ca. 95, and II Clem can hardly have been written earlier than 150. We have, therefore, historical evidence from the end of the first century onward for the disdainful skepticism which is expressed in II Pet 3:3 ff. But it is the Gnostics of the second century who have opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It is probably also they who are meant by the proclaimers of the "clever myths" (1:16) and of "knowledge" (see point 2). Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers (see point 1). II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnosis. A more exact determination is not possible, however.

...

...

4. Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which "statements that are hard to understand" have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which inlcude not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). In view of the difficulty in understanding "scripture," and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that "no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation" because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of "early Catholocism."

It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged. This point of view can be confirmed through two further facts.

5. As in the case of the Pastorals, the pseudonymity in II Pet is carried through consistently by means of heavy stress on the Petrine authorship (see above, p. 430). The auther adduces his authority not only on the basis of the fiction of a "testament of Peter" but also by reference back to I Pet in 3:1 f, intending II Pet only to "recall" (1:12, 15; 3:1 f) what was said in I Pet to the extent that it corresponds to the interpretation which the author of II Pet wants to give to I Pet. This appeal to the apostolic authority of Peter and his letter is obviously occasioned by the sharpening of the Gnostic false teaching which is being combated in Jdue, as a result of a consistent denial of the parousia of the false teachers. In this way, the apostle has become the "guarantor of the tradition" (1:12 f), and as a consequence of the abandonment of the near expectation (3:8) the parousia is stripped of its christological character and functions as an anthropologically oriented doctrine of rewards. In its consistent quality the pseudonymity betrays the late origins of II Pet.

6. In spite of its heavy stress on Petrine authorship, II Pet is nowhwere mentioned in the second century. The apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about it. Its first attestation is in Origen, but according to him the letter is contested (αμφιβαλλεται). Eusebius lists it among the antilegomena. . . Even down to the fourth century II Pet was largely unknown or not recognized as canonical."

From :
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


K.

OK, from what i understand of this Historical Christ vs Biblical Christ sort of debate; not to leave out the anti-theists and their position that the "Christ" was just an Avatar mythos construct, but the entire argument seems to stem from, and centre around the issue of who wrote what when and to whom.

From my perspective, and it is a pretty muddled perspective at times, things really started to go wrong for the Christians when Constantine decided to make use of the growing political power of the Christians by becoming one. Now i have no real way of knowing if his conversion was an honest one or merely a matter of pragmatism. As someone mention here, or in another thread of a similar vein, Constantine used the term Christ with his own name on coins; he also used imagery that would be easily identifiable by both pagans and Christians.

Then there is the matter of the Churches dogmatic teachings and the preconceived beliefs of the historians and scholars that recorded, and created that dogma.

Bear with me as i try to connect some threads here

Some deny that the doctrine that developed in the fourth century was based on Christian ideas, and hold instead that it was a deviation from Early Christian teaching on the nature of God or even that it was borrowed from a pre-Christian conception of a divine trinity held by Plato.

en.wikipedia.org...

Platonism influenced Christianity through Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Augustine was heavily influenced by Platonism as well, which he encountered through the Latin translations of Marius Victorinus of the works of Porphyry and/or Plotinus.

Platonism was considered authoritative in the Middle Ages, and many Platonic notions are now permanent elements of Catholic/Protestant Christianity. Like pagans had before them, Christians understood Platonic forms as God's thoughts. Platonism also influenced both Eastern and Western mysticism.

en.wikipedia.org...

He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls," and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century.

en.wikipedia.org...

In his early years he was heavily influenced by Manichaeism and afterwards by the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus, but after his conversion and baptism (387), he developed his own approach to philosophy and theology accommodating a variety of methods and different perspectives. He believed that the grace of Christ was indispensable to human freedom and framed the concepts of original sin and just war. When the Roman Empire in the West was starting to disintegrate, Augustine developed the concept of the Church as a spiritual City of God (in a book of the same name) distinct from the material Earthly City. His thought profoundly influenced the medieval worldview. Augustine's City of God was closely identified with the church, and was the community which worshipped God.

en.wikipedia.org...

Without going into the Council of Nicaea or the Arian Controversy the image i hopefully illustrated here is that the neo-platonistic influence within the newly founded Christian cum Catholic church was decidedly in bias of "The One" as per the philosophy of Plotinus. After the First Council, the Church fractured into the Syriacs, Coptics and the Church of the East. The Church of the West (Rome) then punished the Arians for challenging them in the concil and their churches were defaced.

The Historical Jesus
April 23, 2010

I well recognize the various documents offered to disprove the validity of the existence of the real Jesus. I have used them myself both for an education and as a way to think about history. However, the historical record as you are using it, fails to take into account the possibility of the spiritual history associated with the profane facts of the life of Jesus.

A person does not have to belong to the church to consider the history of the spiritual facts surrounding the Jesus of history. Spirit is part of history through the placement of values adopted in the culture and acted out and through its institutions. While the church is one of those well known institutions, there are less known repositories in the culture some of which are reflections of the traditions and some are demonstrating what it means to continue to be in contact with the historical Jesus.

I turn now to an example of the living history of this phenomenon where Jesus makes known his continuing presence and views of contemporary civilization. In 1997 Jesus spoke before a group who were in the process of commemorating the remembrance supper. They had prepared the celebratory food and were settling down to a pleasant social afternoon with each other. The air unexpectedly became still, the murmur of voices ceased, and a pleasant male voice filled the room, not loud, but conversational. It was Jesus, and he said:

“I am Jesus. I would like to visit with you for a moment. I know that this is a surprise to you, that you were expecting your teachers, but I am your Teacher also, and I am not reluctant to bring My presence into your environment when I feel you would benefit from My personal embrace.

“You have been discussing among yourselves the practice of speaking with one another and divulging yourself to one another. I ask you, how do you feel I can inspire nations of peoples except that they know Me in the spirit? It invokes no love to recognize that I was a man among men who lived many years ago in a far distant land in a different race of people, who had great affect on people and who taught certain teachings. You may read about me in your books but that does not tell you who I am; that does not open the door between us, that we can know each other.

“And so the same is true for you, My children, My brothers and sisters. To know that you come from a certain village of certain parentage, that you do such and such for a living, that you have so many children or so many hobbies, that you are a certain age or a certain race, does not tell me about you, does not tell others about you, in the sense that I would have you know your brothers and sisters.

“I have asked you to love one another, as I love you. You cannot know this until you open your heart and allow Me to come in, unless your life is affected by knowing Me. And I have spoken of this in terms of being born of the spirit, for although you may admire the works of Myself and other prophets and other heroes, you cannot know us except through the spirit. This is the true family. This is the gospel.

“My Father and your Father is the great Parent, the living God, and you are His offspring in the spirit. It is the spirit that has the life and the recognition that I urge you to embrace. Only that can change the world. Only that can bring you happiness. Only that can open the doors to eternal life, and to a richer, fuller life here in the flesh, in service to this living God.

“I am the Way and I ask you to know Me by opening your heart, that the love of the Father may come in.”

Historical documents are to history what the one-eyed man is to 3D. We can not see true history from the past alone as proof that something was done or existed. Revisionists depend on the improbability that any written document perfectly portrays an event to make their case, and may assert that any written document is just as likely to have been tinkered with to cause it to fall out of favor for accuracy. This is just why research is done to gain clues as what to emphasize in a document when it is confusing or appears to be in error. One ought to look at oral traditions, or institutional history and the causes which underlie its reason to exist. Why would one discount the sayings of Jesus to Peter that actually led to the finding of the still-existing Roman Church for example?

Jesus does not exist in fully 2/3rds of the world if we just look at documents. But he exists in a much larger percentage of this world if one were to examine the ethical traditions followed even by the Eastern religions and the mystery cults which still abound in many corners of the planet. Jesus is not named in these places, but his work lives there without acknowledgment. If beliefs are sanctioned by enough people, even myths become doctrine, but the underlying support even for distorted beliefs usually have a significant historical event as their foundation.

What I have shown above in the Jesus speech of 1997 is not proof in and of itself that Jesus existed even as he said he did 2,000 years ago in that speech, but it is one more piece of evidence added to the record of the Apostles and the sayings of other and older traditions Jesus emphasized, that something happened of great importance 2 millennia ago. It is just as a correct to believe that what records we do have are right about who and what happened, if not in detail, but in spirit. No one has proven Jesus did not exist if we have to put the argument into the negative.

. . . continued into the next window . .

Perhaps this thread exists only to examine the old contemporary records outside of the Biblical writings. Unfortunately, one can disprove water can flow downhill when there is no hill to put water into motion. It is what puts facts into actions which changes perspective and these contemporary records sighted herein lack the hill to animate the living Jesus into the intellect. Most reading this know that, but become over focused on too few facts which results in the error through circumspection. Jesus is a universal force of love and mercy, and he lived in historical times in much the manner recorded in our records. That is not a statement of faith, but of intellect that knows the existence of love and its application in one’s daily life through the living presence of spirit within the mind.

Certainly, the documents reviewed in this thread shed no convincing proof, but if one is truly serious about providing the facts of existence, then they must be facts which are reviewed not just from the written record, but from the memories and experiences of those who say they know Jesus and how they know.

Thank you.

naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com...

Jesus exists -- in India.

www.youtube.com...

If you are looking for definitive proof that Jesus lived in writings and records, you probably won't find them. Likewise, if you are looking for definitive proof that my great grand mother lived in writings and records, you won't find them either.

My point being, that considering the times, and the illiteracy of the peoples of the time that Jesus would have associated with, there wouldn't be a lot of written evidence....just like my great grand mother.

So, we must look to other evidence that Jesus lived...

The peoples and places did exist. The ceremonies, daily rituals and routines are all detailed and noted... from simple rituals of washing feet and uses of incenses and lotions, to wedding ceremonies, the use of myrrh in the preparations of the death shroud, the political and religious squabbling.

Further, the weakness and doubts of the Apostles, the reactions portrayed during Jesus' sermons, His miracles, His death, and resurrection.

Finally, why would these people...these men that supposedly followed Jesus, why would they die for a lie? Why would they face persecution, stoning, execution, imprisonment for a lie? What worldy gain did they obtain if this was all made up? Exile to remote island, crucifixian, imprisonment... so they could fool people into believeing what?

Surely, there are contradictions in accounts given...but seperated by years and memories, recollections do differ.... consider the differences of opinion here about 9/11 and the planes crashing into the buildings...only 10 years and we now have people wondering if it really happened or if there really were planes there.... we have some considering if the Holocaust really happened...and we have documentation in video and photos ad nauseum.

Why would it then be hard to reasonably consider that Jesus did exist, that some accounts and details do differ according to writings over a 70 year period written by a small hosts of people...some eye witnesses and some second generation believers.

If you don't believe, then so be it...but I and many others do. Do pray tell, why does that bother the non-believer so?

Gday,

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
If you are looking for definitive proof that Jesus lived in writings and records, you probably won't find them. Likewise, if you are looking for definitive proof that my great grand mother lived in writings and records, you won't find them either.

Was she also claimed as the son of God who pre-existed before time and who came to earth to do great miracles and attract thousands?

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
My point being, that considering the times, and the illiteracy of the peoples of the time that Jesus would have associated with, there wouldn't be a lot of written evidence....just like my great grand mother.

If Jesus was ANYTHING like claimed, then he would have left much evidence.

If he was just an average nobody, who would care?

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
So, we must look to other evidence that Jesus lived...

You mean - having NO evidence at all, we grasp at any straw that might help.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
The peoples and places did exist. The ceremonies, daily rituals and routines are all detailed and noted... from simple rituals of washing feet and uses of incenses and lotions, to wedding ceremonies, the use of myrrh in the preparations of the death shroud, the political and religious squabbling.

So?
That has NOTHING to do with whether Jesus existed at all.
That's just evidence for people at the time doing what people at the time did.

If THAT is evidence for Jesus, then the ancient Greek myths are evidence for Jercules, for Jason and the argonauts, for Bacchus etc.

May as well say James Bond is real, and Harry Potter, because they include real places and things etc.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Further, the weakness and doubts of the Apostles, the reactions portrayed during Jesus' sermons, His miracles, His death, and resurrection.

A great story.
Why do you think this proves anything historical?

Originally posted by AlreadyGoneFinally, why would these people...these men that supposedly followed Jesus, why would they die for a lie?

A lie?
No-one said it was a lie.
You seem to think if it's not true, then it must be a lie - but that's not so at all. Is Shakespeare a lie? Is Tolkein a lie?
Of course not.

But for some reason, apologists always bring up this "why would someone die for a lie", when No-one said it was a lie in the first place.

Anyway -
people DO die for false beliefs all the time -
suicide bombers, Heaven's Gate cult, Jim Jones cult - according to you, all those crazy beliefs must be true.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Why would they face persecution, stoning, execution, imprisonment for a lie? What worldy gain did they obtain if this was all made up? Exile to remote island, crucifixian, imprisonment... so they could fool people into believeing what?

Why would Samwise Gamgee follow Frodo unless he was real?

Same reason - the apostles and martyrs are party of the STORY.

But there is NO evidence that ANYONE ever met Jesus - just the usual claims about 2 Peter, G.Luke and G.John - which do NOT stand up to scrutiny.

So there is a complete DISCONNECT betwee :
* the people IN the stories
* the people who late WROTE the stories.

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

Not one Christian left an authentic claim to have personally met anyone else who had met Jesus.

Just later stories and claims and books.
None by anyone who ever met Jesus.


K.

You need to take note of the fact that only a tiny fraction of the written record from around Jesus' time survives in any form today, and most of what does survive is extremely fragmentary. Copied by scribe after scribe over the centuries, in the longest-running 'Telephone Game' in human history. In the more recent years but before the advent of the printing press, those scribes were almost always devout Christian monks, who certainly would have embellished any mention of Jesus in the historical record.

I'm not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination, I consider myself to be atheist, although I wouldn't necessarily label myself as such.

I do, however, believe that a historical Jesus did exist, and that he did travel and teach. I don't, however, believe that he was the son of God, or anything supernatural. I believe that he was a great leader and orator who inspired many people to follow him.

After his death, and as people who had first-hand contact with him themselves died away, the myth of Christ began. Immaculate conception, resurrection, assention to heaven, etc.

Early Christians perhaps felt that ascribing certain supernatural qualities to him somehow justified their devotion over the generations.

Gday,

Originally posted by Monger
After his death, and as people who had first-hand contact with him themselves died away,

But they weren't ANY such persons!

Not one single Christian shows any first-hand knowledge of Jesus, or anyone who ever met him.

What we have is a set of books from long after the alleged events, all written by unknown persons (except Paul), who never met Jesus.



If Jesus was such an influential person, how is it that he left NO mark on ANY person - pagan or Christian ?


K.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by Kapyong]