A question about the bible.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
There is no real evidence supporting Jesus and many events and characters of the bible. As a lot of the stories of the bible were influenced by similar stories. Like Noah's Ark was influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh and has similarities with other deluge stories. The story of Sargon or Akkad being sent into the water and drawn out is similar to Moses being put into the water to hide him. The name Moses actually means to draw out. It's possible a small group of people where real in the past. Like King David and King Solomon. But with the stories it's hard to see if they're 100% accurate of their lives and the time period.

Link

If I fabricated an entire new religion today, would people drop their old ones to follow me if I had nothing but lies? Give people credit, at least give their habits credit. People dont drop their old habits for nothing......I contend these people heard about what happened in Egypt, the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the defeat of the greatest magicians ever known Jannes and Jambres, the miracles of Elisha & Elijah, the exile, the return, Greece and the Macabbean revolt, The risen Christ, the thousands who witnessed the Risen Christ, and the miracles by the Apostles confirming all that was written by Moses and the Prophets


Dont put yourself up on a pedestal like you were the only one givin a 100 IQ

reply to post by GeneralMishka

For Christ himself, Jospehus in 'Antiquity of the Jews' mentions him

Those writings have been rejected by scholars as forgeries.

Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."
www.truthbeknown.com...

Outside of the bible, there is no evidence of the biblical figure of Jesus. Personally, I believe that the biblical character of Jesus is a composite of several messianic movement leaders of the time, woven into one story.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
There is no real evidence supporting Jesus and many events and characters of the bible. As a lot of the stories of the bible were influenced by similar stories. Like Noah's Ark was influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh and has similarities with other deluge stories. The story of Sargon or Akkad being sent into the water and drawn out is similar to Moses being put into the water to hide him. The name Moses actually means to draw out. It's possible a small group of people where real in the past. Like King David and King Solomon. But with the stories it's hard to see if they're 100% accurate of their lives and the time period.

Link

There's loads of pagan Greek and Roman sources that also talk about Jesus, generally hostile to Christianity but references all the same.

Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Julius Africanus, Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus etc etc

reply to post by GeneralMishka


There are a lot of gullible people in the world. Look at people who easily influenced by lies of a master sells men. There are also people who join cults through various means. I'm an atheist who doesn't have faith so I look for evidence that I can use to understand if what I'm being told by the believer as true or not. To me there is nothing I have seen that will make me want to change my ways. Because I feel a lot of people it's faith and regardless of evidence or not people would have faith.

reply to post by tdk84


Well a lot of these references don't hold up.

Pliny the Younger was a Roman official born in 62 CE. In one letter he said “Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god ...” That is all. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians. Again, notice, the absence of the name Jesus. This could have referred to any of the other "christs" who were being followed by some Jews who thought they had found the messiah.

Pliny’s report is only of what other people believed. Even if this sentence does refer to a group who followed Jesus it is not particularly enlightening as no one denies that Christianity was in existence at that time. Pliny's report might be useful in documenting the religion, but not the historic Jesus.

A Roman historian born in 69 CE mentions a "Chrestus," a common name meaning “good,” used by both slaves and free people and occurring more than 80 times in Latin inscriptions. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ", which it generally does not. But even if Suetonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus.

Source

There is more at the link. You can see why I'm confused about Jesus being mentioned outside the bible.

reply to post by tdk84


All of which have been debunked.

www.infidels.org...

Yeah you can do a lot of reading on all the names, like i said, there's a lot of for and against.

but let me quote you another who sums it up far better then I..

The first question is about whether or not there is any proof outside the Bible for "Jesus actually existing." But this is an ambiguous question, as I believe some of the comments have revealed.

Are you asking whether there was a real person at the genesis of the Christian faith, an "actual" man who was believed by his peers to be the Christ? Or are you asking whether Christians have any basis for believing that the Jesus of the Christian creed (fully human, fully divine) was a real historical figure? Depending on your assumptions these are two very different questions.

Regarding the first (whether there was an actual man at the genesis of the Christian faith) it seems to me that there can be no reasonable doubt about an affirmative response. From the evidence we now have, it took two decades after the life and death of Jesus before a Christian literature emerged (the letters of St. Paul are the earliest Christian writings, c. 50-60 AD). But if you are discounting the Bible from the discussion (and I don't know why you would since ancient scrolls of the New Testament are still being dug up just like those of Josephus) you still have lots of early Christian writings which mention or allude to an "actually existing" human being at the foundation of the Christian faith (e.g. Shepherd of Hermas, Letters of Ignatius, Clement).

But don't get lost in the archaeology. It is important to remember that for three centuries Christianity was a persecuted religion—many of their writings were deliberately destroyed by the Romans (or accidentally destroyed by the forces of nature over the centuries). Nevertheless, there is plenty of written evidence for his existence; and, more importantly, NONE which denies it. Even the Gnostics, who denied the reality of Jesus’ humanity, admitted there was a human form walking about amongst them. Finally, even the worst detractors of Christianity (e.g. Celsus) acknowledged the “actual existence” of Jesus. For example, some rejected the virgin birth of Jesus by claiming that Mary was actually raped by a Roman soldier. It's reasonable to assume that these detractors of Christianity acknowledged a real birth (and thus a real man) if this is the basis for their rejection of the Christian claim.

And if you think about it, Christianity could never have gotten off the ground if there were doubts about the "actual existence" of Jesus. Remember, it was within the first generation of witnesses that Christianity spread from Jerusalem to Rome. It is pretty unreasonable to think that twelve apostles and a bunch of women could convince the people of Nazareth that someone grew up there who didn't; or the people of Galilee that there was an itinerant preacher roaming their lands performing miracles and teaching thousands at a time when in fact there wasn’t; or the people of Jerusalem that a man was publicly executed by their highest religious authority when there wasn’t, and so on.

The second interpretation of your question is more difficult. Unfortunately, many Christians make the job quite a bit harder since it is not at first glance apparent which “version” of Jesus should be regarded as the authentically Christian version. That is a question that would require much more study and reflection than I’m prepared to offer at this time.

But you can pretty well rest assured that there was a real human being at the origins of Christianity. And as no other name other than “Jesus” has ever been proposed, you can be safe accepting that his name was Jesus.

First, there are clear signs of the existence of a community called christians that was prominent enough to be accused to have provoked the fire of Rome as early as 64 AD. This community, as I see it, has probably its origins in the followers of a charismatic figure who inspired them.

For three thousand years, no one had proof of the existence of Troy outside of The Iliad. Indeed, it was generally (indeed it could be said universally) accepted that Troy was fictitious. And then they found it: the whole fracking city! You'll be surprised how much truth can be found in ancient texts, even those considered epic works of fantasy fiction.

reply to post by tdk84

But you can pretty well rest assured that there was a real human being at the origins of Christianity. And as no other name other than “Jesus” has ever been proposed, you can be safe accepting that his name was Jesus.

If this messianic biblical character DID exist, his name certainly wasn't "Jesus". There was no letter "J" in Hebrew, Greek of Roman. The first use of the letter "J" happened only about 500 years ago.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by tdk84

 

But you can pretty well rest assured that there was a real human being at the origins of Christianity. And as no other name other than “Jesus” has ever been proposed, you can be safe accepting that his name was Jesus.

If this messianic biblical character DID exist, his name certainly wasn't "Jesus". There was no letter "J" in Hebrew, Greek of Roman. The first use of the letter "J" happened only about 500 years ago.

That's a different discussion, I was just quoting another on the matter as he explains it so well.

reply to post by tdk84


No he doesn't, not in my opinion. First of all, Jesus' name wasn't Christ. "Christ" is a Greek word/concept of god's representative on earth, a title given to Royalty. During biblical times, Caesar was the "Christ."

Secondly, there were many sects of early Christians many of whom didn't recognize the figure Jesus as divine. Many of these early Christian sects worshiped a Christ that was spiritual and never physical. (Gnostics)

Even Paul never recognizes that actual life and deeds of this person, "Jesus."

Read Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus: Flavian Signature Edition

Link to the amazon book:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus: Flavian Signature Edition

An excellent book from A to Z. While my expertise is not history or biblical studies, I do work in academia, and I have always had a keen interest in these subjects (years ago I was a young seminarian -- lost my faith, but not my curiosity), and I have read a great many books on this period and the new testament. So many things in the new testament that never made sense to me were brilliantly elucidated in Caesar's Messiah. And Atwill does an excellent and thorough job of citing sources and making a cogent, textual/historically based argument. It is hands down the most readable, informative, and logically constructed book I have read in years -- and I do read a great deal. I had, based on other texts I've studied, already come to the conclusion that it was unlikely that Jesus ever really existed. Caesar's Messiah is the icing on the cake. It's true enough that many American historians "accept" the historicity of Jesus. Yet, "accepting" a belief out of political and academic expediency and propriety is hardly the same as demonstrating by evidence that Jesus really existed, or even likely existed. And, truth be told, there are really only a handful of genuine scholars who have specialized in the narrow time frame of 30AD to 130AD and who are also competent authorities on ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew -- and they simply can't demonstrate that Jesus existed. There is NO clear, non-argumentative, non-speculative evidence that there ever was a Jesus -- at least not one that Christianity was founded upon. Atwill's work, of course, has been vociferously attacked. But I have yet to read an argument against his work that was anything other than an emotional outcry and a groping for old worn out, baseless, yet preferred beliefs about the new testament and Jesus. While I wouldn't yet call Atwill's thesis "proven", it is without doubt the most likely, and most textually/historically supported, argument I have ever read on this subject. Read it, and see for yourself.

There is also a documentary based on the book. It is extremely interesting
You can watch it on youtube here:

Documentary Youtube

Originally posted by Phoenix267
There is no real evidence supporting Jesus and many events and characters of the bible. As a lot of the stories of the bible were influenced by similar stories. Like Noah's Ark was influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh and has similarities with other deluge stories. The story of Sargon or Akkad being sent into the water and drawn out is similar to Moses being put into the water to hide him. The name Moses actually means to draw out. It's possible a small group of people where real in the past. Like King David and King Solomon. But with the stories it's hard to see if they're 100% accurate of their lives and the time period.

Link

Give me another example and evidence that Gilgamesh was real...oh wait...there is that one story...

Hopefully the logic does not sink like a stone.

reply to post by abeverage


No, I didn't say Gilgamesh actually happened. I said it was the story that inspired Noah's Ark and there were many similar deluge stories from other cultures.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by abeverage

 

No, I didn't say Gilgamesh actually happened. I said it was the story that inspired Noah's Ark and there were many similar deluge stories from other cultures.

I know and yet what I said escaped you like a stone in water.

Jesus shows up many more times in historical literature then the Epic of Gilgamesh enough to point that he was a real person. Jesus being a real person is much less Myth then the diluvian stories. The miracles and events are harder to corroborate, yet virtually all modern scholars agree he was an actual person rendering this argument rather moot.

Yet you say there is no evidence for him or other characters is the bible and this is clearly false as there is plenty from a historical point of view to the point I see this more as an attack on Christianity then any actual fact finding.

reply to post by abeverage


To be honest I cannot say Jesus was real or there was man in the past who was the inspiration for the Jesus billions of people revere to today. Who really knows? The reason I deny the so-called evidence is because a lot doesn't hold water. Read the link I sourced earlier and see why I'm skeptical.

reply to post by abeverage

yet virtually all modern scholars agree he was an actual person rendering this argument rather moot

That's just NOT true:



And don't forget Joseph Atwell

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

yet virtually all modern scholars agree he was an actual person rendering this argument rather moot

That's just NOT true:

What is not true? Uh I said Virtually...not "ALL" tell me how that renders my statement false? LOL

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by abeverage

 

To be honest I cannot say Jesus was real or there was man in the past who was the inspiration for the Jesus billions of people revere to today. Who really knows? The reason I deny the so-called evidence is because a lot doesn't hold water. Read the link I sourced earlier and see why I'm skeptical.

edit on 19-6-2013 by Phoenix267 because: (no reason given)

We can pass Wiki links for Jesus all day long. When it comes down to it you either believe the non-biblical references or you don't.

I have read that link but better yet I have picked up a few books on the subject perhaps you should depend less on opinion and Wikis and more on research.

Here is a great review of a good book on the subject Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

reply to post by abeverage


You said "Virtually ALL scholars agree.............." That is just NOT true.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

You said "Virtually ALL scholars agree. That is just NOT true.

edit on 19-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Do you seriously want to argue this? Next you will tell me you want to argue the definition of is...is?

There is a Majority of scholars who believe Jesus is a real person...One historian is not a majority...and he is a mythicists which his talk was presented by Atheists. Many Atheists believe the Bible has factual cooperated evidence.

You don't have to believe in Jesus' words or the Bible to know that there is plenty of factual history in places or people written about in it. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the bible presents factual historical references if you don't believe it you are a mythicists.

And although that argument lacks tangible evidence you cannot argue not proving something doesn't exist...

Further you can disagree with the miracles and resurrection but disagreeing he existed does nothing to further an Atheist cause as people will believe whatever then want. As you have just proven. lol