It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OH MY GOD IT"S A MIRACLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

They can be explained WITHOUT advanced technology, though you may not like the explaination.

There is NO contemporary evidence (beyond the Bible) that Jesus existed and no contemporary evidence of his doing any miracles. No, Josephus and so forth wrote AFTER Jesus' death and said "I heard it from someone who told me..." and they didn't relate any miracles.

At that time, there were quite a few people running around who were doing miracles of the same order as Jesus (look up Simon the magician sometime). Unlike Jesus, these folks ARE documented by several other contemporary sources.



I'm surprised someone let this one by. If you think there are no records of Jesus outside the bible, then you are mistaken my friend.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities.

Another early reference to Jesus comes from the great Roman historian, Tacitus. Writing around the year 110, he recalled the events following the Fire of Rome in 64:
"To stop the rumour, [that he had started the fire himself] Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments the people called Christians, who were notorious for their abominations. Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate."

There were also accounts by people such as Pliny the Younger.

So, to say there is no evidence for Jesus outside the Bible is ignorance.


Next time, before jumping in to say something like that, do your research.




posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trotsky
I'm surprised someone let this one by. If you think there are no records of Jesus outside the bible, then you are mistaken my friend.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities.

Another early reference to Jesus comes from the great Roman historian, Tacitus. Writing around the year 110,



Perhaps you'd like to take a look at what I said again?

I said there's no contemporary accounts of Jesus outside the Bible. Tacitus, as you said, write in the year 110. In order for him to have SEEN Jesus and the events, he would have to have been some 100+ years old. He was repeating what he was told.

Ditto Flavius Josephus.

There are no confirming records that were contemporary to Jesus from any source except the Bible.

There is no recorded history of the "slaughter of the innocents" where Herod went around and killed the firstborn male children (this would have had a far-reaching impact and there'd have been dispatches about it all the way to Rome and back.) There's no Roman record of Jesus (unlike Sparticus, who led a revolt or Simon the Magician (who was also said to be resurrected.))


Finally, there are some accounts that Jesus' body was stolen from the grave by his followers as well as accounts of his being helped out of the grave and fleeing elsewhere. I'd doubt the latter; most folks didn't survive crucifixion.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 01:34 PM
link   
By "contemporary," I mean "written by people who actually saw Jesus" or who were alive at the time that Jesus supposedly lived.

This includes court records, legal records, and military dispatches -- nor does the history match the written history of the time match the history in the Gospels to any significant degree.

There are records of Paul, though, and Peter. Not Jesus.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Ok, I got ya.
Here's what I've dug up.

I'll begin with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:


Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:


They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:


About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D. But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:


On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:


The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Every one of those quotes, Trotsky, is good and solid evidence for what the early Christians believed. Nobody (agnostic, athest, Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, pagan, etc, etc) would dispute that this is what the early Christians BELIEVED. We're all in agreement over this.

But "this is what they believe" does NOT mean "this is the absolute truth."

No one would dispute that the early Egyptians believed that the sun was rolled across the sky by a giant dung beetle. Nobody would dispute that the American Plains Indians believed firmly that the stars were put in the sky by Coyote and that the god Coyote really existed. Nobody doubts that the Egyptian Osiris cults believed that Osiris' body was cut into many pieces and thrown into the Nile by his evil brother, Set.

But you can't use those references as proof that Set or Coyote or Osiris or Isis or Horus or Bacchus or Ra (etc, etc) ever existed.

It's like King Arthur... lots and lots of legends and no hardcore proof that the man ever lived (though one theory says he's one of those heroes that are a composite of several chieftans.)



posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 07:38 AM
link   
One thing though, not to deny, is testimony. People throughout history have a story to tell. Some false, some genuine. Think about what is heard the most in history. Why is it we're so confident in the -now-?


Science confidence pride rebellion we'll see



posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I believe in Santa Clause...



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 02:41 PM
link   
hey 29 being made in gods image means that we are made the way he wants us to look like. we are not going to become a god.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 02:53 PM
link   
The "resurrection" was likely misinterpreted, in a manner similar to Lazurus'... There are still plenty of omissions and unknowns surrounding even the Bible's account of this.

Why are people so willing to believe an ancient fairy tale, more than a thousand years later, and take it as fact, when we're talking about people who believed that thunder was an expression of the gods' anger? That's like believing that their story of the Sun going around the Earth, or something equally strange....is likewise true.

Oh, wait a minute, the church has conveniently decided that that was a mininterpretation....my bad.



posted on May, 23 2003 @ 01:36 AM
link   
If one does not believe what the bible teaches..what does he have? Is it not a miracle when a baby comes from a mothers womb and gasps for his first breath of air? Is it not a miracle that you wake up every day and open your eyes? Is it not a miracle when a person youve known your whole life is one day diagnosed with cancer, documented on paper by an institute of credability, to find a week later that the cancer is gone and cant be found nowhere in that same persons body? Is it not a miracle when rotten flesh in a mans stomach is not capable of a touch without falling to pieces one day, and given up for dead, and a few days later is opened up and the flesh has been restored to new? Is it not a miracle when Jesus steps into your body and forgives you of all your sins and washes you clean from all bad things you have ever done and you weep like a baby and thank him for doing such a thing for a filthy thing such as we all are? Is it not a miracle that Jesus was sent here to die for our sins so that we could one day go to heaven and be with him? Not to mention all the miracles that Jesus himself did in his lifetime to have such a following as he has!!!!!! Believe me, if I was standing in the presence of Jesus and a laim women, crippled up and bent over, deformed her whole life, came before him and simply be a touch she was made whole-stood upright and was made perfect--my lands-who would not believe in him? Or who would not believe this was a miracle? Miracles happen every day, some small and some great. Try to explain them as technolgy if you want to, but I prefer to give God the glory! If you want to experience a miracle, the greatest miracle ever, ask Jesus into your heart and ask for forgiveness-and truly mean it with all your heart, and you will experience the greatest miracle of all! May God bless us all.........................Amen..............Believer







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join