jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (170 posts)

No archaeological evidence of jesus christ?

  1. pisean282311 profile image54
    pisean282311posted 7 years ago

    Was reading jesus myth theory and it says that there is no archaeological evidence of jesus christ?...if it true?..what are your views on this?

    1. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. alternate poet profile image65
        alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The problem with finding relics or writings now is that the fake manufacturing business was more popular and widespread than the plastic disney junk handed out at movies and McDonalds - and the relic and scroll manufacturing business went on from around 300 years AD and still goes on.  Pilgrimages were the favoured holiday sightseeing tour and a pilgrimage to some relic containg shrine or supposed place was the top spot on the bill.  After a couple of thousand years teh numbers of bits is enormous.  Splinters of the 'true cross' put together would make an ark. This was nothing new, there are enough Buddha's teeth to make false teeth for half the aged on the planet, enough hairs from Indian 'holy' figures to make a wig for every bald christian.

        The Turin shroud has been carbon dated to a time at the height of the relic manufacturing business, I forget the date, around 8 or 900 I think. Yet it is still a 'holy' relic and some high placed Muslim just visited it I hear, as if it was what they claim, even though it is clearly proved a fake !

        1. dutchman1951 profile image61
          dutchman1951posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Deleted

          1. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The most likely explanation for the lack of contemporary writing is that Jesus was thought to be the Jewish Messiah and that his reign would occur within the lifetimes of his followers, who also happened to be poor, ignorant Jews who were illiterates anyway, and he was of no great interest to the Romans, who ignored him in all their writing. 

            It was not until it was shown that an imminent return was unrealized 50-150 C.E., that the oral legends began to be written and passed among the various churches.

            It seems fairly obfious from the later writings that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, but was most likely he was simply a heretic Jew who opposed the orthodoxy of his time and was killed by the orthodoxy for it.

            The rest is simply legend and fable.

            1. alternate poet profile image65
              alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              The whole point of corrobarative evidence is that it is not directly related to the issue, where is the Roman court record of Pontius Pilate 'washing his hands' or officially passing decision to the Jewish authority in the court, where is the mention of the specific crucifixion, the wood and nails must be purchased and there would have been a purchase order for this and making the cross etc just like in any organised society. and this kind of evidence is emotionless - it just is.  That a lot of evidence  is not available is no surprise, that none is available is unheard of for things that supposedly involved the high court and the Roman Governor. We even have love letters and invitations to dinner preserved from this period - written by Romans to each other mostly, these scraps of information often mention news of the day - no news about any Christ or messiah or any other name that any random person wants to ascribe to the guy we are talking about.

              1. aguasilver profile image86
                aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Oh come on....you must be joking!

                receipt for buying the wood for the cross smilesmilesmile

                What a joker!

                1. alternate poet profile image65
                  alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You can claim I am a joker - but I have picked up, felt and read receipts for wine, clothing and household items - ALL FROM THIS PERIOD. Among them were everyday, very normal love letters from soldiers to their wives, invitations to dinner when passing through.  All very normal, and apart from being 2000 years old, pretty uninteresting.

                  Nobody has ever come up with anything FROM THE TIME that mentions Jesus - the closest is a mention of numbers of messiah's roaming the countrside claiming to fulfil the old Jewish prophesy of the messiah coming to free his people.

                  1. profile image0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    __________________________
                    NONE of what you said is true

            2. profile image0
              Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              ___________________________________
              Everything you have said is incorrect.

              1. profile image0
                AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You will please explain how OPINION can be INCORRECT?  Oh, I see, because it is not YOUR opinion, therefore it is incorrect.

                Madam, you are full of it.

                1. profile image0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  ___________________________________________________
                  You were stating it as fact. Don't call me madam or I will have to address you the same.
                  It has nothing to do with my opinion.

                  Yahshua did not write anything, He taught. The scribes are the only ones who wrote.

                  You said
                  "The most likely explanation for the lack of contemporary writing is that Jesus was thought to be the Jewish Messiah and that his reign would occur within the lifetimes of his followers"

                  The Hebrews didn't believe the Messiah would arrive till the end of time as we know it. That is why they did not believe Yahshua was the Messiah.
                  _______________________
                  You said
                  "who also happened to be poor, ignorant Jews who were illiterates anyway, "

                  It's rare to find a poor illiterate Hebrew, then or now.
                  _______________________
                  You said
                  "Jesus was thought to be the Jewish Messiah and that his reign would occur within the lifetimes of his followers",

                  His followers according to scripture never thought he would reign in their lifetime. They leaned that it would be at his "second coming".
                  _______________________
                  You Said
                  "he was of no great interest to the Romans, who ignored him in all their writing"

                  Rome has always wanted to rule. It was the High Priests appointed by the Roman Governor, that demanded Yahshua's death, because they were afraid all of the people would follow him and overturn their rule.
                  _______________________
                  You Said
                  "It was not until it was shown that an imminent return was unrealized 50-150 C.E., that the oral legends began to be written and passed among the various churches."

                  Your timeline is way off
                  _______________________
                  You said
                  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/54114?p … ost1235285

                  "obfious"

                  Weally?
                  _______________________
                  You Said
                  "Madam, you are full of it."

                  Watch your condescending, nasty remarks. IT'S against the RULES

                  1. alternate poet profile image65
                    alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    You are offering mostly opinion and not fact.  The messiah christ would have been in the right time and place according to the expectations of the Jews. 

                    After this supposed event it was the end of Israel, the end of time for that culture, and so the prophesies could be said to have been fulfilled.  OR, like the many 'messiahs' around the place all preaching - from contemporary accounts - the 'salvation' of the people from Rome, they were acting out the prophesy in the same way that Osama Bin Laden was acting out prophesy by choosing to attack the 'twin towers'.

                    The whole country was in a state of suppressed rebellion against Roman rule and much of the detail is available - but NO mention of such a powerful figure that the people might rise up and follow him.

                    There certainly were illiterate Hebrews, most were illiterate this is why scribe was such a popular profession. Even educated people did not bother with writing, they got a scribe to do it - much like we use computers and printers today I guess, except that we have not yet perfected a good speech transcription programme.

                  2. profile image0
                    AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Deborah Sexton,

                    Your information is biased and opinionated.  And wrong.

                  3. profile image0
                    AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Don't be such a witch - that is against MY rules.

                    Here, from the horse's mouth, and just for you:

                    Matt 24 32   “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

                    There is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the followers of Jesus who thought him the Jewish Messiah expected his return within their lifetimes - seeing how Jesus told them that would happen.

                  4. profile image0
                    AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Deborah Sexton wrote:

                    (You said
                    "Jesus was thought to be the Jewish Messiah and that his reign would occur within the lifetimes of his followers",  His followers according to scripture never thought he would reign in their lifetime. They leaned that it would be at his "second coming".)

                    Again I repeat that your information is wrong.  Mark 9:1, spoken to Jews who considered Jesus the Messiah (which could only be the Jewish Messiah, as both he and they were Jews)

                    "And he said to them, 'I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.'"

                    These words are difficult to twist into anything but what they are - a claim that the Messianic kingdom of God would come within the lifetime of some of those talking to Jesus at that moment.

                    Kind of like Uri Gelller claiming he could bend spoons with his mind - that didn't happen, either.

    2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Hello. Evidence is opposite of faith. If there will be only one evidence, then people will worship to evidence and not to living God.  The same time the faith would be ruined.
      I know this. Would you die for lie? 11 disciples of scared being crucified too were scattered and locked in there homes. 
      Then when Jesus appeared to them, they all died all by violent death, except one - John. He died in exile on island Patmos. 
      Have a good day.

      1. dutchman1951 profile image61
        dutchman1951posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Vladimir, evidence of The Book of Revelation has been dated to 1000AD. John the Baptist did not write it.  That has been verified in History. And please consider that Evidence up-holds faith, not destroys it.

        Evidence makes it real, not mythical, thats why we search...truth

        1. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          evidence validates something, or otherwise proves it was incorrect

    3. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thats because noone can find his body. And guess what, It's not here.

      1. alternate poet profile image65
        alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        This very very simplistic view in a sm@rt@ss comment is typical of hte depth of pseudo christian thinking.  To prove someone existed is quite easy when there are other records available like invoices, balance sheets, diplomatic reports,  oh  sorry  - I mean itsy bitsy bits of drawings, long words on paper rus and big big house things where ONLY the bible says there a was a big big house thing once - but the remains of none of these can be found. NONE.

        1. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Ofcourse you are not going to find any remains of Jesus because he ascended to Heaven. As for the House, What house? Solomon's temple? Good luck trying to convince the Palestinians and Jews to let you make an archiological dig out of their holy spot.

          1. alternate poet profile image65
            alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The remains of Solomons Temple are clearly visible - everyone else seems to know this - you missed that bit of history lesson because you were learning how not to fall off the edge of the world ?

            But I guess you are suggesting that 'they' won't let anyone go and look ?  Do you have any idea of the numbers of arcaeologists over how many years have been digging up the 'holy' land for evidence ?  the world around you did not start in America, even trying to get your thinking back the 7000 years you have been taught would be an improvement.

            1. aguasilver profile image86
              aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              There are no remains of the temple buildings themselves - neither the Solomonic temple, nor the second (Herodian) temple.

              All that remains (of the 2nd temple - not Solomon's) is a portion of one of the surrounding walls (not a wall of the temple building itself) - known as "The Wailing Wall".

              So your 'facts' are in error, which means that as well as being insulting to the poster, you have not bothered to check your source information before you attempt to denigrate him.

              Nice one!

              It may have escaped your notice, but neither the Jews nor the Muslims are actually very keen on proving Christ was the Messiah.

              1. alternate poet profile image65
                alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Yes you are right, but then I am just pulling all these common 'facts' - that everyone knows I thought - out of my memory, I am not bothering to go find sources. 

                The issue of being insulting to the poster is quite another thing - and that relates to the very christian type of arrogance that he displays with his very christian miniformation.  However I am especially trying to show him the opposite of his views in the hope that he can be redeemed and returned to the fold of the rest of thinking humanity - as it is especially a shame that the US indoctrinates its soldiers with the bible to go and fight its holy wars.

        2. aguasilver profile image86
          aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

          Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

          The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

          Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

          Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

          Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

          The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

          Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

          Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

          1. alternate poet profile image65
            alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            ALL hearsay written one, two or three centuries AFTER the events - ALL of it.

            We have discussed earlier the vast numbers of relics and texts that came after the christian hysteria started.

            1. aguasilver profile image86
              aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              WRITTEN REPORTS made by non Christians....

              Not really hearsay, when a Roman scribe writes you up!

              The premise that Christ never existed is so hollow that to try and keep flogging this particular dead horse is ridiculous.

              There are more written accounts of Christ than of Augustas Ceasar, and why on earth would someone fabricate evidence and carefully seed it into history when (at that time) Christ was little known... are you really suggesting that early Christians PLANNED this as a conspiracy to take place 2000 years later!.

              Nonsense.

              Until Constantine hijacked the church body and incorporated it with pagan faiths, most Christian communities were small self governing bodies, and no true believer is concerned with 'building' the church, most bodies grow by 'osmosis' i.e. someone brings another in when they have gotten involved with their life one way or another, and that person sees the Christian life as desirable.

              This whole thing is not about numbers, Churchianity wants numbers 'cos numbers = more cash in the box, but Christ wants folk who come to Him, one at a time, because they recognize who He is.

              1. alternate poet profile image65
                alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The writing up that you claim as proof happened many years later and was abouth te followers of christ.  Nobody is arguing here about the existence of your religion, even wway back then - BECAUSE THERE IS ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND WRITING from the time, from the place about what was happening at that time and place.

                The 'fabrication of evidence' that you put up IS the christian faith - people writing and saying what god said, what christ said.  The whole of christianity is a total fabrication of a story from myths, legends, ancient prophesies, in a time in which their country was being destroyed by the Romans, their people being slaughtered or scattered or enslaved.

                And all the time this story was being invented and embroidered and gathering followers, myths are always more attractive than reality.

                1. aguasilver profile image86
                  aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  So your premise is that a small group of simple folk (who you stated could not write) formed a religion based upon legend, which then caused them to be killed in horrific manner by the authorities, in order to dupe humanity into believing in Christ?

                  From a believers perspective, there is one simple flaw in your premise, that flaw being that 2000 years later, he is still in communication with us.

                  You call it delusion, mass delusion, yet still folk are being killed by opponents of Christ, and still they are dying rather than deny Him, and still each day, more folk meet Him and come to faith in this 'myth'

                  It really does not make sense that you are so vehemently opposed to Christ, if He means nothing to you, just get on with your life and leave we 2.5 billion 'fools for Christ' to live in our 'delusions'!

                  1. pisean282311 profile image54
                    pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    well there is no flaw in what you say and what alternate poet says..it is not that just christ is in communication which those who believe in christ...even muhammad has been claimed to be in communication with people ..one of them was on hubs too...on television i saw a girl who claimed to be in communication with ganesha..so being in communication is not what alternate is talking about...brain is too powerful tool and one can be in communication with lincoln , gandhi too...

                  2. alternate poet profile image65
                    alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    So you have NO ANSWER as to why there is  no archaeological evidence of your christ.

                    I did not say the early followers of christ could not write.

                    All religions are founded on legend.

                    Shedloads of dfferent people were killed in horrific ways in the time of the Roman Empire, christians were no more or less 'picked on' until they grew in numbers and were perceived as a threat by the Roman authorities.

                    You have communication with christ ?  give me your number and patch me through would you, I have a few issues I want to take up.

                    I am not vehemently opposed to christ - I am opposed to the suffering and misery that those who profess to follow him wreak on the world. I am prepared to accept that there MAY have been  a christ who actually preached love, forgiveness and compassion for his fellow man - anything is possible, but there is no real evidence beyond hearsay - NONE.

                    The real issue with your admitted delusion is that it includes the destruction of everything that does not agree with itself - just like Islam which is the same in every important aspect.  It would not make sense for me to leave you to these dangerous delusions.

                  3. profile image0
                    AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    acqua,

                    You need a better education on the early church and how orthodox Christianity came to be.

                    There was no persecution of Christian belief - but there also was no standard Christian belief, either.  There were Adoptionists, Seperationist, proto-orthodox, and Gnostics, just to name a few, and each group claimed to be the true faith of Jesus.

                    What finally won out was conversions - body count - to orthodoxy.

                    What you believe now was not taught by Jesus but interpretation of a group of men.  You simply believe in the side who won out.

    4. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I am two years into Anchient Biblical study, and Archeology-  and so far I would say, yes, no evidence that Jesus exhisted, but very much evidence that the Hebrews did.

      Still sorting it all out however, long way to go.

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
        Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Pardon me for asking but isn’t Hebrew a language... not a people ?

          I always thought that Hebrew was the language of Israel and  Classical Hebrew the language of the Torah.  I think there's also an ancient Hebrew kicking around somewhere as well.


          Oh Yeh!  The ‘H’  in ancient is silent...
                     just like the ‘P’ in Bath !

        Thought you might like to know.

        1. profile image0
          Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ______________________
          The H is not silent. It is pronounced Hey

          1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
            Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            you mean as in Hayncient ???

            1. profile image0
              Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              __________________
              I have no idea what you mean.

      2. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You'll have to summarise it in some hubs - very curious

    5. profile image0
      swordofgideonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      may be the shroud of Turin?

      1. profile image70
        paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        If the shroud is genuine; then it is.

      2. alternate poet profile image65
        alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The church was so sure that it was genuine they allowed it to be carbon dated - it is a straight FORGERY and was rushed straight back to its box and the information just ignored as it is BIG business for Turin or wherever it is.

    6. profile image0
      swordofgideonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      i believe in jesus crist he touched me jn my heart when i was very young and i have been blessed as far back as i can remember i'm over half a century now and not once in all my years has god ever left me all alone i'v had friends,wives,and kin folks who when the goin' got tough they were tough too and got goin',but god like a rock always there never changing i'm not quit a relic yet but after all i been thru in life and seen their ain't no way jesus don't exist. amen(means a truth).

    7. IntimatEvolution profile image81
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Could it be that the evidence just hasn't been found yet?

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I doubt it. There is no proof of a tooth fairy either.

  2. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago

    According to scripture his body was ascended along with his spirit.
    That is why he told Thomas to thrust his hand inside his wound.

    We are suppose to do this too.

    1. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      archaeological evidence are not only based on body only...

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I know.
        According to scripture, he did not have any possessions or anything.

        The Romans kept the census, so I guess they would be the people to ask. They hated him and wanted to do away with any trace of him.
        The High Priests were assigned by Rome. The High Priests cried out for Yahshua's death because they were afraid the people would choose Yahshua.

        That's according to scripture

        1. pisean282311 profile image54
          pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          i got that..thanks for sharing...

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If they destroyed everything, that would mean even the writings
            If you got that than you know that it could be true-I mean motive for wiping out his very existence

            1. pisean282311 profile image54
              pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              but do u think christ was so popular then..his popularity ascended after him...

            2. Merlin Fraser profile image79
              Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I seriously doubt the Roman's would do such a thing, why would they hate him, assuming he existed in the first place ?

              At that time in history if you annoyed the Romans they just killed you no more problem.

              Besides as far as I remember it from the Movie it wasn't the Romans who wanted him dead but the Jewish priests am I wrong ?

              1. kendra5 profile image57
                kendra5posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Why don't you read the Bible and find out for yourself ?

                1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
                  Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Because there is far better Fiction on the market.


                  You just can't see it can you ?  No one can find any real evidence that this guy ever existed so it has to be God that removed all the evidence.

                  Why not simply accept the truth that it was never there in the first place ?

                  Logic and common Sence is not Rocket science, but to keep deluding yourself is a sad.

                  1. kendra5 profile image57
                    kendra5posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    You have completely convinced yourself that their is no God.  You feel there is nothing beyond yourself, and you have never even read the Bible.  This is what is sad, and, by the way, the Bible speaks of you, and it speaks of how to deal with people like you.  Shake the sand from your sandles and walk away.  Leave you to your own depravities.

                  2. profile image0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    ________________________________
                    Read "The Gospel of The Hebrews" It records Yahshua
                    It is not the new testament.

                    I am not Christian and do not believe "Jesus Christ" is God, but,
                    There is only one Almighty God and Creator.

                    Which god do you worship? I mean you state yours is a different God

                  3. profile image0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    ____________________________
                    Than why argue if you won't check facts?

              2. profile image0
                Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                ____________________________________
                If you read it you will see.
                As I said the High Priests were appointed by the Romans.

                The regular Jews loved Yahshua, the Romans were afraid, not only that the people would follow and support Yahshua, but they might also rise up in revolt, if enough people believed in him. Yahshua had power, they didn't have.
                So they killed and tried to wipe out his legacy .

                Why do you think the Apostle Paul pretended to be an Apostle?

                To lead them away from Yahshua's teachings.

                It's all there in scripture.

                1. profile image0
                  AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You are qutie entertaining - you ask folks to research facts and then toss out "scripture" as if it had the authority of Complete Infallible Truth when the only truth to be known is that scripture is the written version of oral legends passed down through tribes, by men to other men, so all it represents is the legends of SUPPOSED events and the only FACT is the word SUPPOSED.

                  1. profile image0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    ________________________
                    No, he said he doesn't read scripture. So I said how can you argue about what it says in scripture, if you don't read it.
                    Now go back up and read from the first time he replied to me. It's just a few posts up, not too hard.

                    You are rather entertaining yourself.

    2. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Deborah Sexton,

      Why don't you quote other Gospels?   I defy you to find this "Doubting Thomas" story in any of the other three Gospels.

      Don't bother to look - it's not there.  It's only told once.  You cannot say that "The Bible" says so-and-so or even scriptures say so-and-so.

      Each book was written on its own to stand alone.  All you can say about the Doubting Thomas story is the a single Gospel said so-and-so.

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        And? Your point?

        1. profile image0
          AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          My point is that you are making up your own version when you state:(According to scripture his body was ascended along with his spirit.
          That is why he told Thomas to thrust his hand inside his wound.)

          My point being that you should know that the gospels do not agree with each other and therefore the Doubting Thomas story in the book of John has no bearing on what was written in Mark, Luke, or Matthew.

          The Doubting Thomas story is in John because by the time that book was written, some 90-150 years after Jesus lived, physical resurrection was the orthodox belief.   

          The book of Mark though, written the earliest, does not go into such detail to try to show a physical resurrection - because it was not the prevailing belief when Mark was written - Cristology was still being debated at that time.

          1. profile image70
            paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this



            It is a chapter of the Indian history that Thomas and Jesus met a King named Gundaphorus at Taxila now in Pakistan. It shows that Thomas got convinced that Jesus had not died a cursed death on the Cross as Jesus had prophesied.

            http://markmason.net/ch4ex2.htm

            Did Jesus survive the crucifixion?
            Did he live in India to age 100?
            From Ch. 4 of In Search of the Loving God by Mark Mason
            . . .
            Extraordinary as this story of Jesus visiting India is, some have taken it even further. Holger Kersten, in his book Jesus Lived in India, extends the story to even more incredible heights, backed up by even more sketchy evidence. We will just very briefly look at his theory, before moving on to better established knowledge about Jesus.

            Kersten uses evidence from the Shroud of Turin (of much challenged authenticity) to maintain that Jesus was not dead, in the modern sense of the word, when taken from the cross, but just in a deep coma, and that, in the tomb, he rose from the teeth of death and made a remarkably quick recovery. If he could miraculously heal others, it seems reasonable to suppose he could do the same for himself. Indeed, Jesus inferred he would do this, when he said, referring to his body, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (John 2:19). After this Jesus appeared to his disciples a few times, then left with his mother Mary to travel gradually, over a period of sixteen years, back to India.

            The by now elderly Mary died on the way, but Jesus continued on to Kashmir, and lived and taught there till he was about a hundred years old. There is even speculation that he attended the Fourth Buddhist Council, held in Kashmir toward the end of the first century A.D., and helped inspire the important reforms made to Buddhism at this council.

            The second century Church Father Irenaeus wrote a celebrated book called Against Heresies, which was crucial in establishing church orthodoxy. In this book he claimed Jesus lived to be an old man, and remained in "Asia" with his disciple John, and others, up to the times of the Emperor Trajan, before finally dying. Trajan's reign began in 98 A.D., at which time Jesus would have been just over one hundred years old.[22] This is support, from a most unexpected quarter, for Kirsten's theory.
            Kirsten himself uses place names, age-old traditions, and claims in certain documents, to give credence to this theory.

            The story is that after Jesus appeared to his disciples, he went to Damascus in Syria, where the Jews had been disliked since the Maccabean wars, but where the Essenes had a spiritual center, and where he would be safer than in Palestine. He was still there about two years later when he dramatically appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, in order to win him over from being the main persecutor of the Way to being the main proponent of it (Acts 9:1-31).

            About five kilometers outside Damascus there is to this day a place called Mayuam-i-isa, which means "The place where Jesus lived," and the Persian historian Mir Kawand has cited several sources claiming Jesus lived and taught in Damascus after his crucifixion.[23] These Persian sources claim that Jesus, while in Damascus, received a letter from the King of Nisibis (now Nusaybin near Edessa in Turkey), asking Jesus to cure him of a disease. He sent Thomas to cure him, and later visited there himself, before leaving to travel north west into the Kurdish territory in the north of Anotolia.

            The apocryphal Acts of Thomas relates how Jesus suddenly appeared there at the marriage festivities of a princess at the court of the King of Andrapa. From there Jesus and Mary apparently journeyed eastward over the old Silk Road, where certain place names such as "House of Mary" (near Ephesos on the west coast of modern Turkey), supposedly suggest their stay. As Jesus gradually moved through Persia, he increasingly became known as "Yuz Asaf," meaning "leader of the healed." Tradition says he preached throughout Persia, and converted vast numbers to his creed. Accounts such as Agha Mustafai's Jami-uf-Tawarik (Vol II) claim Yuz Asaf and Jesus were one and the same man, and the court poet of Emperor Akbar of India later backed this up when he called Jesus Ai Ki Nam-i to: Yus o Kristo, or "Thou whose name is Yuz or Christ."[24]

            The Acts of Thomas describe the stay of Jesus and Thomas in Taxila (now in Pakistan) at the court of King Gundafor in the twenty-sixth year of his rule (47 A.D.). East of Taxila is a small town called Mari ("Murree" in English) near the modern border with Kashmir. In Mari there is a grave which has been maintained and honored as far back as anyone can remember, called Mai Mari da Asthan, "The Final Resting Place of Mother Mary." The grave is orientated east-west in Jewish fashion, rather than the Muslim north-south. Moreover, the area was under Hindu rule in Jesus' time, and the Hindus cremated their dead and scattered their ashes, so had no need for graves. When Islam took over this area in the seventh century A.D., all "infidel" monuments were destroyed, but they recognized this grave as being a relic of a "People of the Book," Christian or Israelite, and respected it.

            The grave continues to be honored as the final resting-place of Jesus' mother by Muslims, who consider Jesus one of the most important prophets of Islam.[25] The Qur'an states that Jesus (Issa or Isa) was saved from dying on the cross, which it considered an accursed death, unworthy of him (Deut 21:23), and has many other references to the "prophet Issa," supposedly to correct the distorted image in the writings of his followers. The most incredible of these is that Muhammad believed Jesus' prophecy of the coming of the "Spirit of truth" (John 16:12-14) referred to him.

            After this Jesus supposedly traveled on to Kashmir, from where he made periodic journeys to other parts of India. There is a grave in the middle of Srinagar's old town which many people believe to be the grave of Jesus himself. The building later erected around the grave stone is called Rozabal, meaning "tomb of a prophet." Above the passage to the actual burial chamber is an inscription explaining that Yuz Asaf entered the valley of Kashmir many centuries before, and that his life was dedicated to the search for the truth. Within the inner burial chamber there are two long gravestones, the larger for Yuz Asaf, the smaller for an Islamic saint of the fifteenth century. Both gravestones point north-south in keeping with Muslim custom, but they are in fact only covers: the actual graves are in a crypt under the floor of the building. There is a tiny opening through which one can look into the true burial chamber below, and see that the sarcophagus containing the earthly remains of Yuz Asaf points east-west in keeping with Jewish custom. This clearly indicates Yuz Asaf was neither an Islamic saint nor a Hindu.[26]

            The Indian Mogul emperor Akbar, in the sixteenth century, planned to unite India, then split into religious factions, with a single religion that would contain the quintessence of all the various faiths as its one "Truth." Akbar evidently selected at least one saying of Jesus to inscribe on the wall of his Victory Gate to the central mosque of the city he built for himself, for (in 1900) this saying, unknown in the west, and supposedly deriving from Jesus' stay in India, was found on a piece of wall amid the ruins of Fatehpur Sikri, the city he built 25 km from Agra:

            Said Jesus, on whom be peace! The world is a bridge,
            pass over it but build no house there. He who hopeth
            for an hour, hope for eternity; the world is but an hour,
            spend it in devotion; the rest is worth nothing.[27]
            Since Akbar had in common with Jesus a vision of one religion uniting the best from all religions, perhaps, if he had known about it, he would also have had Jesus' statement of this vision inscribed where the public could read it:
            I have other sheep that are not of this fold.

            I must bring
            them also. They too will hear my voice, and there shall
            be one flock and one shepherd.   (John 10:16 AT)
            The Prophet Isaiah, we saw earlier, also had this vision of the whole earth united and at peace under one God (Isa 2:1-5). It is worth noting that this verse of Jesus', apart from being a vision of religious unity, is also suggestive of the fact that Jesus traveled and taught outside Palestine.

            What are Christians to make of this supposed return of Jesus to India after the crucifixion? Despite the evidence for it being thin, perhaps we could, at least, ask this question: what if the inevitable further research into the theory does authenticate it? What if the remains of "Yuz Asaf" in Shrinagar are exhumed and are well enough preserved to show evidence of crucifixion? My own belief is that this should not adversely affect Christian faith. Whether Jesus actually physically died on the cross is a minor point.

            The important thing is that he suffered for the sins of all, and indeed, if he didn't physically die he would have suffered much more (have died a worse "death") due to the pain of recovering, than he would have if he had just quickly died and been miraculously raised to life. Later versions of the Nicene Creed say Jesus "descended into hell" for three days, which would be a good description of such an ordeal of recovery from terrible wounds while lying in a grave. In either case the Bible makes it clear that Jesus ended up very much alive in his original body, and that his body was not subject to decay during the ordeal (Acts 2:31).

            What is possible is that he was what we would now call "clinically dead" for a while, and that, like many patients in modern hospitals, he was restored to life. We do not, however, any longer think of "clinically dead" as really being dead - only when the brain has decayed so much as to lose its ability to function do we pronounce a person dead. And, as we have just seen, the Bible says Jesus' body was not subject to any decay. It is also worth noting that Jesus said there would be no miraculous sign to demonstrate his authority, except the sign of the prophet Jonah:

              For as Johah was three days and three nights in the belly
              of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and
              three nights in the heart of the earth.   (Matt 12:40)

            And Jonah did not die inside the fish before he emerged.
            Jesus may have visited India, and he may even have returned there after his crucifixion. We just don't know for sure yet, one way or the other. The fact that there is room for speculation about this, and that it can't be ruled out, shows just how little we actually know about Jesus, and the importance of keeping an open mind about him and his teachings.
            http://markmason.net/ch4ex2.htm

            http://www.gnosis.org/thomasbook/toc.html

            1. alternate poet profile image65
              alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Excellent bit of research and nicely balanced view. 

              I have met christian Indians who use the surname Thomas from the south of India. They appear to have a quite different view of the whole story and appear to be a little put out that they are outside of mainstream christianity in some ways.

              The possibilities you listy are at least more convincing than the remaining disciples watching jesus drift up to heaven from mount whatever.

              1. profile image70
                paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks for your appreciation.

          2. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            ___________________________________________
            My husband and I, he being Hebrew, do not use any of the New Testament, only for reference. We read in the Hebrew language, "The Gospel of The Hebrews".

            Matthew, Mark, and Luke tells only one year's history of Yahshua.
            John is a three year history, so they wouldn't say the exact same thing.

            And if you read the first three Gospels, they don't agree on everything But are too much alike in some things. They were copied from other writings, because the authors-Like Luke, didn't know Yahshua.

            Most Scholars state that "the Gospel of John was written earlier then the other Gospels, and is more reliable than any of the other canonical Gospels.

            The Gospel according to John was started by John, "the beloved disciple", at the time of the writings, an Apostle, and thought to be completed by Cerinthus….but it's debated that Mary Magdalene, finished the book of John.

            According to John A.T. Robinson "The non-canonical Dead Sea Scrolls suggest an early Jewish origin, parallels and similarities to the Essene Scroll, and Rule of the Community. Many phrases are duplicated in the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls"

            When a Scholar tries to give a time line for a writing, they always give a time period between this many and that many years either way. They usually give a 100 year period. They do that for any ancient writing.

            Yahshua's Victory over death, is the eighth and greatest sign that he is the one prophesied about (Exodus 12:46 Psalm 34:20) (Zechariah 12:10)

            Even in Matthew 26: "But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee" He intends to raise his body not just his spirit.
            Matthew 26 :61, speaking about his body, Yahshua said "And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days."

            It wasn't just something from the Gospel of John.

            1. profile image70
              paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Victory over death is surviving from death or revinging from near-death; not actual death.

            2. profile image0
              AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I'm sorry, Deborah, but once again you display a lack of knowledge.  Scholars concur by a HUGE concensus that of the Gospels the book of Mark is the earliest, written around 20-40 C.E.

              It is obvious that Matthew and Luke copied sections of Mark intact, and thus were the next two gospels to be written.

              John, written in the range of 90-110 C.E. was the last book written.

              None of these books were started or even thought of being started by the disciples. 

              I'm not debating your knowledge of Jewish scriputures, but you clearly do not have a storehouse of information about early Christianity or the writings that drove that faith.

              1. profile image70
                paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                It is however very clear that none of the four gosples was written by Jesus or dictated by him or Jesus authorised anyone to write them on his behalf; hence these have nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings.

          3. DrMikeFitzpatrick profile image58
            DrMikeFitzpatrickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You will also find the "Christos" in many other religions, ALL having similar stories-virgin birth (Virgo) son of god (Sun), and let's go forward, satan (Sa TAN-to rebuke or rebel) was added 400 years later in the writings. History suggests there were 3-4 Yeshua ben Josephs, none of whom were publicly crucified-which is also quite symbolic as well.

    3. profile image70
      paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That shows Jesus got recovered from his wounds inflicted to him on the Cross; and he was just like he was before the event of the Cross.

      You know Jesus died later a natural and peaceful death in Srinagar, Kashmir, India.

      1. Beelzedad profile image58
        Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, Jesus just left Chicago and he's bound for New Orleans. smile

        1. profile image0
          Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          _______________________________
          You look sooo intelligent in your picture!

          1. Beelzedad profile image58
            Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            And, you look mmmmmaaaarrrvelous! smile

            1. profile image0
              Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              ____________________________
              Thank you. You are very kind

  3. Bard of Ely profile image87
    Bard of Elyposted 7 years ago

    I have read there is no archaeological evidence for his existence too!

  4. kerryg profile image84
    kerrygposted 7 years ago

    My understanding is that there's no contemporary written record of him either. I don't personally doubt his existence, but there is certainly plenty of grounds for doing so.

    1. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ya there is no contemporary written record ..the promoter of christ myth theory also suggest that christ didnt write anything at all and so they doubt his existence at first place...but as deborah says may be romans destroyed most evidence...

  5. alternate poet profile image65
    alternate poetposted 7 years ago

    The Romans recorded everything - mespecially anythign to do with the King or High Priests - in every country they ocupied.  I understand that there are surviving records from that time and they do not mention any Jesus Christ or Yahwe being crucified etc, and the date would not be a problem becasue scripture says that it was a major festival, hence letting one go free and the crowd chose Barabas (? memory) and there is no mention of that either.  But there are contemporary accounts of several Jesus's roaming the countryside preaching etc at that general time.  And no other direct archaeological evidence of him at any other place either - where strangers would have to sign in and out - such as Canaan for the wedding booze up.

    1. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But there are contemporary accounts of several Jesus's roaming the countryside preaching etc at that general time...is it?...so how can these guys say that christ didnt exist?

      1. alternate poet profile image65
        alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        In other words there were more than a few Christ figures preaching around the place but no evidence that any one of them was the specific Christ or that any of the events happened.  Rome had no reason to hide the events, it is claimed that it had washed its hands of the matter. Pontius Pilate was a recorded historical figure as was Herod, but as far as I am aware none of the biblical story of the time has any correlation anywhere else.

  6. Merlin Fraser profile image79
    Merlin Fraserposted 7 years ago

    Everybody know His Name Wasn’t Really Jesus Christ, Right?

    Jesus is just the Greek translation of Yeshua, which translates from Hebrew to Joshua and with no surnames at the time he would simply have been Josuhua son of Joeseph.

    Christ on the other hand is a title, again much is confused in the translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, from the Hebrew word Masiah the anointed one.

      And since around the same time there was about half a dozen of these so called prophets wandering around the region all claiming to be the Messiah... 

    Chances are there never was one single claimant, so other than the New Testament there is no formal records of the existence of any such person. 

      It's all heresay folks !  Been trying to tell you that since I've been here.

    1. aguasilver profile image86
      aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well the disciples wrote accounts of their time spent with the one and only Christ, and all were martyred for it, which is surprising considering they could have renounced the 'myth' and live happily ever after, and they were writing in living memory, rather like Russell Hunter could write about the Beatles, as he was contemporary to them, and write more coherently with a 40 year gap for truth to be separated from hysteria.

      Plus there's the rather obvious fact that millions of folk meet with Him daily! ..... that's a real bummer I know for the avid atheist, but it's a fact (to those millions of people) even if a very small minority of non believers try to deny it.

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
        Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        What a difference two thousand years of distortion can make to a story.   Who said the disciples wrote anything ?  Whoever said they could even write, highly unlikely as 99.9% of the population of the world at that time were illiterate.

        You talk about 40 years gap  to separate truth from hysteria,   I’m talking about taking two thousand years to take half truths to mass delusion....

        How tolerant our society is,  say you meet God and or JC every day and we smile and walk on.  Try saying you meet John Lennon or Elvis every day and they’ll lock you up.

        PS  I seriously doubt that what you consider as Non believers are a small minority,  and please stop confusing me with or referring to me as an atheist.  True, I do not believe in your God or any other for that matter but that is only because I have proved to my own satisfaction the Man invented all Gods, not the other way around.

        1. profile image0
          Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ------------------------------
          Funny, my Hebrew relatives live in Israel, and the Hebrews have reserved record of the old testament for much longer

        2. aguasilver profile image86
          aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I live in a country where many folk cannot write, but equally next door to my 'shophouse' a man squats in the street verandah typing letters all day long, for those who cannot write or type, you are presumptuous and lacking in experience if you believe that the disciples did not 'write' their own accounts, especially as they were tantamount to their own death warrants from an angry Sanhedrin.



          Then you are talking nonsense.

          There is no mass delusion, being a believer is not easy and frankly if it were not for Christ's presence daily, I would quickly slip away, back into my humanist ignorance.

          It is the very presence of the Holy Spirit that drives you guys mad, and for as long as He remains here on earth, you are restricted in how far you can try to castigate believers and Christ.

          But fear not, you need not await much longer then you can be assured that all hell will break out as the Holy Spirit is withdrawn and the spirits that control your world are let loose to wreak havoc and destruction



          Not if you were a medium, then our secular society would put you on prime time TV or pay good money to 'consult' with you on your chatline, for they are both dead, truly dead, and 'sleeping' until their appointed time to discuss with God their lives.

          But as needs to be frequently pointed out to you guys, CHRIST HAS RISEN AND IS ALIVE! HALLELUJIA!!! smile

          You may hate that, but you will never get any true believer to accept your nonsense and deception.



          Errrm.... surely that makes you an atheist, at least in the dictionary meaning of the word?

          The figures I took from:

          http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/

          One of your (OH no sorry, you just don't believe God exists, you are not an atheist)websites and according to them, you non atheistic folk number about 850 million, just slightly more than the universalism folk (who believe everyone gets saved no matter what) and the neo pagans, who believe God knows what!

          However, that makes you 13% of the world populace (how appropriate) so you are right that there are more of you 'non atheists' than I first said.

          But not too many for God to accommodate together in splendid isolation from Himself.

          1. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The frustrating part of evolution is having to wait so long for natural selection to work.

            1. pisean282311 profile image54
              pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              well religion too is very old my friend...

              1. alternate poet profile image65
                alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Religion is younger than a blink of an eye in the evolutionary timetable my friend. Humans have only been on this earth in their current form for less than a heartbeat in a lifetime by comparison, my friend.

                1. aguasilver profile image86
                  aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  So we can hardly be considered experts or knowledgeable about a God who has existed for eternity and will do so once our tiny little life windows shut.

      2. alternate poet profile image65
        alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The period before, during and after what would be our year zero, the whole middle east was occupied by Rome.  All of the peoples were either co-operating or rebelling. The Jews were having continuous little uprisings that were being put down very harshly, this is why there was such a partnership between the important Jews and the Romans.  As Ianto points out, Herod was a ward of the Romans, he was Romanised and Caiaphas his High Priest was also trying to keep the place together with a semblance of Jewish rule under the Romans.  I guess these guys could be seen as pragmaticly trying to keep the place together, or as a kind of Vichy government or collaboraters, or as some combination.

        The placid world of people 'gathering' to hear Jesus speak, that is depicted in the bible, would in reality have been dangerous and difficult to travel around and to get together in large groups.  The wandering 'messiahs' were a part of life and they were all preaching the coming of the saviour of the Jewish peoples, along with small rebellions, all were being put down by the Romans and the Jewish hierarchy. Crucifixion was was the favoured form of execution and the huge numbers crucified are recorded, not for any religious reason but for insurrection. The Jewish people seem to have been generally prone to dying for their cause.  Masada was a rebellion where they took and held an easily defended plateau and held it against the Romans for some time. When the final Roman assault was clearly going to overpower them they ALL committed suicide.  These recorded events, along with the record of many itinerant preachers and messiah's 'dying' on the cross is not the picture painted by the bible.  And there is NO mention in any official record or contemporary account of any of the specific events or any specific Jesus.

      3. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        acqua,

        I'm not sure where you get your biblical information but you have made a number of claims that simply are inaccurate.

        First century literacy rate was about 1-2%, and those were the wealthy.  For the women and working class who made up the followers of Jesus, literacy rate was certainly zero.  Fishermen of 1st century Palestine would not have been able to read or write.

        No one knows who wrote the 4 books of the Gospels, although it is well known that disciples did not and could not have written any of them.  Mark is the oldest book and it was wriiten around 20-50 years after the death of Jesus.  Matthew and Luke came another 20-30 years after that, and John was the last some 90 years after Mark.

        As none of the disciples could write, it is impossible that they were martyred for having written about their time spent with Jesus, as you claim.

        Reality is there ARE no original New Testament manuscripts to be found anywhere - all that are left are copies of copies of copies of copies that have many thousands of errors between them all.

        I always urge believers to simply look up these facts for themselves.

    2. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ____________________________

      I was just going to say that, and saw your remark.

      One extra thing.. He was born Immanuel and used the name Yahshua, because he said he came in his Father's name Yah.

      All those looking for record of "Jesus Christ" won't find it for sure, since it wasn't his name.

      1. dutchman1951 profile image61
        dutchman1951posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Deborah, you are correct he would not have been called that by the Hebrews or the Romans.

  7. kendra5 profile image57
    kendra5posted 7 years ago

    Maybe God doesn't want there to be any archaeological evidence  that Jesus existed. God gave us the Bible as the evidence that Jesus existed.  We have been given all of the Scriptures, not just the OT as the NT saints had.  In the story Jesus told of the rich man and the poor man, the rich man wants to warn his brothers that there really is a hell, but Abraham tells him that his brothers have the Scriptures to inform them of hell. We are to walk by faith not by sight(2 Corinthians 5:7).... (John 20:28-29) And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" {29} Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." It takes great intelligence to read and understand the Bible.  Instead of trying to intellectualize yourself away from God, why not devote that intelligence to God?

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      but christians don't use any intellect.  They ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence of how our world operates, and believe in a "feeling in their heart"

  8. CMHypno profile image89
    CMHypnoposted 7 years ago

    There is no archaeological evidence of Jesus - tomb, bones, inscriptions, contemporary written records, and the Roman chroniclers and historians never mentioned him once. The books of the New Testament were written years after the event.

    These Romans were sophisticated news gatherers who knew everything important that went on in the Roman Empire, so either Jesus as a historical figure did not exist or was too unimportant to the Romans to mention. The Romans had no reason to hate or fear Jesus - if they thought that any character was fomenting rebellion they would have put the rebellion down, and at that time there were several 'messiahs' who appeared in Palestine at that time (who actually were mentioned in Roman histories and records)who were brutually crushed

    1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
      Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It's like having an Echo in here !

      Didn't I just say all that  or am I suffering from Déjà vu ?

    2. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      @CMHypno

      hmmm...so whats ur take?..

  9. iantoPF profile image87
    iantoPFposted 7 years ago

    For the record; I refuse to live my life according to the dictates of Hebrew mythology or middle eastern legend. However I have read the Bible and continue to find much that interests me.
    There is no archealogical evidence of the New testament jesus. In fact archealogical evidence shows that there was no settlement at Nazareth until 200 AD. many of the characters mentioned in the story did exist, Herod obviously, Caiaphas as an appeaser of Rome, though he was trying to prevent the slaughter that did result from continous uprisings, and Pontius Pilate who was the protege of the Captain of the Praetorian gaurd. All of this is documented as a prelude to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the Masada tragedy and the Jewish diaspora. The question is quite rightly raised, if all this is recorded, why is there not independent evidence of jesus Christ?
    It has been mentioned that there were many Messiahs around the time of Roman occupation and that is true. They were revolutionaries seeking the expulsion of the occupying force and the establishment of a theocratic Jewish state, the "Kingdom of God on Earth" 
    Christianity appeared as a religion when the revolutionaries attempted to spread support for their cause amongst the occupied gentiles. This is what caused the Roman governors to demand citizens swear loyalty to the Emperor or be executed as traitors. Christians were synonimous with traitors to Rome. All of these things are well documented. The New Testament Jesus has circumstantial evidence to the claim of a rebel but no claim as a God.

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I read that they couldn't find any evidence of the existence of Nazareth either

  10. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 7 years ago

    It's all about man's written record of the supernatural - scripture.  Superman #1 from Dell Comics described Superman - so I'm guessing in another 1900 years or so Superman will be real, too, and will have been crucified on a Kryptonite Kross.

  11. iantoPF profile image87
    iantoPFposted 7 years ago

    Alternate Poet is absolutely right. I have this vision of an old Jew calling out to a crusader "Hey Christian! have I the deal for you." Holy relics were big business. Where is there any evidence at all of the Jesus of faith?
    I enjoy a good debate with people who believe and have sensible arguments to put forward but reading through this thread, too many of you are making it up as you go along.

  12. Rod Marsden profile image76
    Rod Marsdenposted 7 years ago

    There is physical evidence that Pontius Pilate existed and was definitely prefect of Judea. Its an old road sign from the period. There was also a Jewish scholar of the day, Josephus,  who wrote maybe two paragraphs about Jesus. Unfortunately what he wrote was interfered with by a later Christian scribe so we cannot be certain what exactly Josephus wrote. Apart from those considerations some of the things Jesus did tally with what happened to him. You ride into a holy city on a holy day and you are asking for trouble. You disturb the workings of the temple and you are asking for either crucifixion or stoning.

    1. alternate poet profile image65
      alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      There is much much more evidence that Pontious PIlate existed, including CONTEMPORARY RECORDS both in Palestine and in Rome.

      As there is of all of the other key figures - except christ.  Nobody is doubting the Jerusalem existed or the structure around the story - but when there is NO EVIDENCE of the key figure, christ, you have to say not only that you cannot prove he was there, but that he was there at all is very unlikely.

      1. pisean282311 profile image54
        pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        you have good point...

      2. Rod Marsden profile image76
        Rod Marsdenposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It is doubtful that Jesus if he existed would have responded to the term Christ. Jesus is a particularly good name for a savior in that it means God saves.

        1. alternate poet profile image65
          alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The name is not so important - there are many different names that all mean the same man - the issue is that there is no proof that there was a man of any of those names who did any of the things that he is alleged to have done.

          1. Rod Marsden profile image76
            Rod Marsdenposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I was merely suggesting that if you were to create a savior and give your savior a name then Jesus would be a perfect name.

  13. Merlin Fraser profile image79
    Merlin Fraserposted 7 years ago

    I’m not sure if any of this is actually worth wasting my valuable time on, it has all the hallmarks of banging your head against a wall or trying to educate pork !

    However I suppose if it enlightens one poor deluded soul then it may be worth it if only so as they can get on with the rest of their life without constantly looking over their shoulders to see if they are going to get a bolt of lightening up their butt from an nonexistent deity.

    As I have tried to explain, on numerous occasions, what I believe in predates any and all religions.  What does that mean, well for starters Muslims go back about 1,500 years to Muhammad,   Christians a few hundred more back to Jesus Christ and the Jews go back a few thousand years more than that.

    At most, between them they all seem to believe the ridiculous notion that the planet Earth and everything else in the entire universe was created about 6,500 and 7,000 years ago by some sort of supreme being in just six days and we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

    What I am talking about pre dates all of that by thousands of years, back to the times of primitive man who feared practically everything that moved on earth and in the sky above.   

    Today for all their pontificating about their believes and faiths in a God and his prophet or a God and his son;  as they spout endlessly from the bible twisting the meanings to suit whatever point they are trying to make, usually only to themselves, are there any among them who does not understand the natural  phenomenon around them ?  Things such as thunder and lightning, Earthquakes, Volcanoes and tsunamis.             

    Now try to imagine such things in complete ignorance of their causes, see only their effect upon mankind.   Sheer naked fear breeds superstition and those superstitions led to a belief that someone somewhere greater than them was for some reason angry at them and sought to punish them for some misdeed.  These beings had to be appeased somehow, and so the Gods were created, rituals and sacrifice followed.

    Centuries pass and as man’s understanding grew he feared these things less and less, of course also by this time we have created people whose living depended upon maintaining that fear as a means of control.   They have many names, Aayatollah, Mullah, Priest, Etc.

    Of course the further man’s mind and understanding expands the smaller becomes the space left for them and their God so the harder they struggle to cling to the faithful.

    You can feel the bile rising in their throats even here on Hub Pages, they preach Peace and Love in one breath and condemnation with the next on all who would dare to challenge their childish beliefs.   

    Most of us outgrow the need for such primitive beliefs, most of us know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or tooth fairy but some just can’t go that one extra step and I know why,  What if.....  ???

    And it is that 'What If' that traps them.... and always will.


    We are not athiests... we are the ones who have reached enlightenment not as you would have us believe the other way round.

    So please, debate and discuss with us if you will but can we hold the bile and the insults ?

  14. Mancini profile image59
    Manciniposted 7 years ago

    Maybe no evidence IS evidence. You can't dig up bones that aren't there.

    And if they're not there, then maybe it's because the owner still has need of them?

    1. alternate poet profile image65
      alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      We did this further back smile

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
        Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You do get dizzy in this place, going round in circles, it's like a kids playground.....

          Did not.... Did To....Did not.... Did To..... and on and on. Shall I try once more.....
         

        Courtesy of archaeology we know a lot about their history and our ancient past, Egypt, Greece and Roman we have their language and written records and yes in many cases their very bones as well.   

        What exactly do we have from the Biblical era, not a lot, a few vague stories cobbled together in a book that even at the time was severely edited to make it fit the political message required.  Most of the stories are self contradictory or are copied from somewhere else.  Much of the mythical tales are re runs from other cultures and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

        Archaeology wise they have found little to substantiate any of it, they haven’t even found proof that Moses existed and that means, No Exodus, No wandering around in the dessert for 40 years,  No ten commandments, No Arc, No promised land Nothing !    Oh! and if that isn’t proof enough even if the Exodus did happen everywhere they supposedly went was under Egyptian control, the Sinai, and the promised land.   Egyptians were great record keepers as well,  not a Boo... Nada... Zilch.!   

        Pray away to a nonexistent being if you want,  bow and worship a nonexistent God if you must no one is stopping you in fact many people have given their lives to grant you that freedom.  All  I ask is stop trying to justify it,  If that’s what you believe fine...Great even,  but believe it... you don’t have to try and explain it or justify your actions to me , only yourself.   So please, if you are happy in your ignorance of what has transpired in the last 2,000 odd years just be quiet and allow us who seek the true enlightenment of knowledge get on.

        1. aguasilver profile image86
          aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "So please, if you are happy in your ignorance of what has transpired in the last 2,000 odd years just be quiet and allow us who seek the true enlightenment of knowledge get on."

          What an absolute mound of sanctimonious claptrap from someone who for some spurious reason believes they are massively intelligent and 'enlightened', when in reality they are deceived and have bought the lie.

          If you are as smug as your picture suggests it explains a lot.

          Fortunately you deserve no further consideration.

          Please take your inflated ego and keep it to yourself. roll

          1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
            Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            There's all that Christian Love again....!

            Do you ever, ever stop and listen to yourself... you do not have the monopoly on truth, no matter what you believe.

            The crap you spout is thousands of years old and hasn't ever been updated, sorry to enlighten you but the world has moved on.  Or do you still live in a mud hut, go to work on a donkey, cook over an open fire fuelled with Ox crap....

            Or as I suspect, you avail yourself of all the comforts that modern science and development gives you  while spreading bile on any who dare challenge you ...and you call me sanctimonious ?

            1. aguasilver profile image86
              aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Merlin, you are difficult to love, even from your photo you ooze smugness and self ego, and your writing tries desperately to suggest that you know everything and we are all but fools.

              As for the rest of your diatribe, God never changes, I like that, He is not some quack philosopher or scientist who amends his presentation as he discovers 'more' truth (whilst forgetting that what he held to be true was just disproved).

              We believers are not required to live in caves, indeed we need to be in the world but not 'of' it, so we are encouraged to enter into secular frays, but not let them affect us or our faith.

              It must be galling to meet believers who simply reject your wisdom due to their relationship with a God you do not know, but I warrant you will continue being disappointed, for your 'rapier sharp' roll rhetoric will fail to divert folk who KNOW God from their path.

              Now I sleep for a while.

              1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
                Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                God never changes, I like that, He is not some quack philosopher or scientist who amends his presentation as he discovers 'more' truth (whilst forgetting that what he held to be true was just disproved).

                That’s what science is all about you pillock !

                You gather the facts as best you can you formulate ideas and a theory, then you invite others to examine and test your theory to prove or disprove it and then you move on.  That is the way to enlightenment.

                However I am glad you accept all of the gifts  that science and technology has to offer while you await your fate.

                1. profile image0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  __________________________
                  First of all, Science doesn't disprove God.
                  I am not a Christian. But I believe Yahshua existed and I believe in God.
                  I also believe in Evolution.

                  You are breaking the rules, Calling someone a derogatory name.
                  You have opinions that are no more concrete than anyone's opinions. We all have a right to them. Adults don't call people names unless they fit.

            2. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              so well said

    2. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      @mancini if body was only thing from which one could get archaelogical evidence ...hindu's ancestor wont have any...body is not the only thing needed...write ups, contemporary writing etc .

    3. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Now THERE'S some great thinking.  I also can find none of your non-evidence evidence for Puff the Magic Dragon or Hercules.  Does that mean they were real, as well?

  15. angela_michelle profile image92
    angela_michelleposted 7 years ago

    I think the many writings about him, in both Christian writings (the bible) of that time, and outside writings during the same time, prove he existed. Whether he is deity is another story. I think we need to enter that question with true understanding, prayer, and seeking out the truth with our whole selves.

    1. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      i am what christians say non believer..but i believe jesus might have existed...though i dont believe that jesus was god...probably because i have read more miraculous stories from my country than what jesus did..when i dont believe in them i have no reason to believe in jesus's miracles either...having said that i wonder why i never doubt jesus's existence...your point is well taken and thank you for your inputs...

    2. alternate poet profile image65
      alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The point of this thread is that OUTSIDE writings OF THE TIME do not mention him, OR many of the events and places in the bible OR many of the other characters.  ONLY the bible has these tales and people.  So NO it is not proved in any way that we require before we even consider believing in something.

      1. aguasilver profile image86
        aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Hang on, I sent you a list of non Christian sources a couple of days ago, which you dismissed as irrelevant.

        So the particular trick required to answer your hypothetical queries is that we believers need TO find not just MASSIVE documentary evidence written by a variety of folk, but evidence that fits YOUR definition of evidence.

        May I remind you that the men who wrote the evidence of the gospels DIED as a result of producing their evidence.

        They could have recanted, before they were hung upside down on a beam, or boiled in oil alive, or had their entrails ripped out of the body, but they chose to endorse their evidence, and be horrifically killed by the Romans.

        But that is insufficient proof.

        You are clutching at straws to disprove Christ, and frankly it's silly.

        Whether you believe in Christ or not is inconsequential to me.

        1. alternate poet profile image65
          alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Whether I believe is inconsequential in itself.  This thread is about evidence of th4e existence of Christ, Jesus or whatever name has been used for a single person who is supposed to have lived around the year zero.

          Science, history, philosophy, every day life even - all rely on facts.  Facts are things that can be proved, either by experiment that can be reproduced by others independently or is an event that is supported by corroborative evidence from other - disocciated sources.

          All the things that you call facts are hearsay and speculation or fiction written after the event and no more valuable than anything you or I choose to make up.

          I am not disputing that the person may have existed - I am pointing out that there is NO corroborating evidence that the person existed - just as there is no evidence in Egyptian records of the Exodus of the Jews from that country with Moses.

          Other aspects of the story of the man also point to it being a work of fiction based on many different things that happened around those times.

          1. aguasilver profile image86
            aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            experiment: try it!

            reproduced by others independently: Muslims, have had experiences with Christ and (secretly) converted, we meet them in many instances and they have never been evangelised.

            corroborative evidence from other - disocciated sources:

            See above, but more so when anyone comes to meet Christ, they are non associated sources by default.

            More later, go to work.

            1. profile image0
              AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              aquasilver,

              Advance apology for butting in but you made no reply whatsoever to the good statement of alternate poet to which you responded.  Are you interested in rationally discussing the topic or are you simply here to peddle your belief system?

              The reality is that there is no evidence of a historical Jesus, the closest would be called hearsay in that it is stated by second-hand accounts.  That does not rule out the possibility of a real Jesus, but there is also no hard case to be made.  The case for is circumstantial, which is totally fine and a reasonable argument.

              But faith and belief systems should have no bearing on the discussion.

        2. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The bible couldn't even get the names of the disciples/apostles recorded consistently.  You have been told they died awful deaths, but I've been reading that's all lies too - no evidence that the 12 existed either

          1. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The reason for 12 apostles, whether real or invented, has to do with the nature of the message brought by the earliest stories of Jesus.  The 12 were representations of the 12 tribes of Israel, and each apostle at the end of times was to reign over one of the tribes of Israel.

            The original Jesus story is one of an Apocalyptic Jewish rabbi who preached that the end of the world would come in his lifetime and that an earthly kingdom would be established by God, and the Jews needed to follow the Jewish laws to be ready for the event.

            Jesus in the earliest writings was not divine.  You can actually see a progession if you follow the earliest writing to the later writing.  The earliest writing has Jesus exalted to be the Son of God at his death.  The next stage has Jesus becoming an adopted Son of God at his baptism.  Luke takes it a step further with the virgin birth story (not in earlier writings) and makes Jesus the Son of God at birth.  It was not until the book of John - about 90-110 C.E. - that Jesus is proclaimed a divine being as "the word", which is simply an expression of the Greek Logos, and funny thing it was the Greeks to whom this author was writing.

            1. pisean282311 profile image54
              pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              your point makes lot of sense considering how generally human beings operate...what you say is quiet possible...

            2. profile image0
              china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              There you go again - giving facts and stuff.  You know somebody will be along in a minute to tell you that all that 'evidence' was fake and planted by god to test our faith.

              Glad you are here AKA Winston

              1. pisean282311 profile image54
                pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                lol

                well i dont think god would want dumb people to test faith?..If not naturally thinking human would question and try to see things from all angels...and god would want intelligent people who can question or else god would be fine with other species ...they are better off in not questioning than curious humans...

  16. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago

    The Hebrew Bible is called the Tanakh or Miqra. It is the Hebrew acronym  for the initial letters of its three parts:

    Part 1=Torah (Teaching, Law)
    Part 2=Nevi'im (Prophets)
    Part 3=Ketuvim (Writings)

    It is part of the Hebrews history

    They accept their history as strongly as you accept yours. It was compiled in 450 BCE

    The Greeks translated it wrongly and use abstract words instead of tangible ones.

    The true Hebrew Bible uses almost all consonants.

    1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
      Merlin Fraserposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's the point I was attempting to make...  450 BCE

        I'm talking anything up to  20,000 years BCE....

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        ______________________
        That is when the 3 parts were put together, not when they were written.

  17. iantoPF profile image87
    iantoPFposted 7 years ago

    LMAO Merlin isn't it a shame when a joke goes right over someones head.
    For what it's worth I agree there is no "H" in ancient and my P is always silent in the bath, though it sometimes turns the water blue. big_smile

    1. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I guess we don't think alike.

      I am a literal person and don't play games, unless everyone is told it's a game.

      When someone is honest and upfront, they feel others are too.

      If P in the bath is something vulgar, I don't want to know

  18. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    AKA Winston wrote .....

       There is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the followers of Jesus who thought him the Jewish Messiah expected his return within their lifetimes - seeing how Jesus told them that would happen.
    --------------

    Jerami ...
        And is there any reason to think that he didn't ????

    1. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Jerami,

      He preached an Apocalyptic message of the resolution of a dualistic world (evil/good) with the return of the Messiah overthrowing evil and establishing an earthly kingdom with Jesus as king - that God would come and judge the evil and establish an earthly kingdom was the message of Jesus - and Jesus said that some standing there listening to his words would not die before this happened.  In other words, it was imminent.

      Well, obviously, the world did not end, so the idea of Christianity had to be changed to keep up with reality.  If God did not establish an earthly kingdom and put Jesus in charge like Jesus said God would, then there was no way to keep preaching that message and still get converts.

      That is why the message changed as time went on.  Paul and Jesus do not agree in their messages - because the idea of an earthly Messiah died on the vine with Jesus and the story thus had to change.

  19. Rod Marsden profile image76
    Rod Marsdenposted 7 years ago

    Something started a movement within the Jewish faith that resulted in a breakaway religion we call, in its many forms, Christianity. I don't believe it was all a case of wishful thinking though the movement L. Ron Hubbard started might throw doubts on that.

    1. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      hmmm...might be...

      1. ajuvr profile image34
        ajuvrposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        see how hot people get if you touch the chord of faith.I wish to see people truly enlightened by the use wisdon and logical thinking rather than sinking themselves into blind faith.my url caseunique.weebly.com

        1. profile image0
          Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ________________________________
          Intelligence? Please...believing in God, does not mean I lack intelligence. You have no idea.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You might have intelligence, but seriously lacking wisdom. lol

            1. profile image0
              Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Says you. Big deal.
              You have no idea about me.

              1. ajuvr profile image34
                ajuvrposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                to me christ is the first ever human rebel.roman incumbency couldn't tolerate.tortured and killed him . the pity is the sheer and most malefic opportunism in human history they showed in owning and misinterpreting christ's ideals after making void of him!

  20. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 7 years ago

    Jesus died later a natural and peaceful death in Srinagar, Kashmir, India. His tomb/grave there is an archaeological find.

  21. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 7 years ago

    STORY OF ST. THOMAS THE APOSTLE
    AND
    THE ST.THOMAS CHURHES OF INDIA
    A SHORT HISTORY

    ________________________________________

    (This short history was presented as part of the exhibition during the Fremont Celebrations connected with the 50th Indian Independence) 
    ________________________________________
    Acts of Judas Thomas 
    Acta Thomae, the apocryphal book is historically dated around end of first century soon after the martyrdom of St. Thomas. There are several ancients texts in existence in various languages such as Syriac, Greek, Latin, Armenian and Ethiopic. The original manuscripts are found in the British Museum 
    This book gives a detailed account of Apostle Thomas’ labors in nine parts. The gist of the book is as follows:
     
    After the ascension of Jesus Christ, the Apostles met in Jerusalem and portioned all the countries of the world among themselves. India which at that time included all Middle East to the present India fell to the lot of St. Thomas. 
    A certain merchant by name Habban - the Raja Vaidehika of Indian King Gundnaphor came to Jerusalem looking for a carpenter to take home to the King. Christ appeared to Habban and asked him whether he was there for a carpenter. He said “yes”. Jesus introduced himself as Jesus the Carpenter from Nazareth and sold his slave Thomas to Habban for twenty pieces of silver and pointed Thomas to him. Habban asked Thomas whether Jesus was his master. Thomas answered “Yes, he is my Lord.” Habban told Thomas, “He has sold you to me outright.” Thomas was dumb founded. In the morning, Thomas prayed, “Lord, Let thy will be done” and went with Habban. He took with him nothing except the twenty pieces of silver which Jesus gave him.
     
    They took the sea route to India and landed in a port called Sandruk Mahosa . Here Habban was received by the local King. They attended the wedding of the King’s daughter and St. Thomas demonstrated his ability of miracle healing on the troubled daughter of the King by the laying on of hands. There after they continued their journey in India. They reached the Kingdom of Gundaphorus and Thomas was commissioned to build a palace for the King in the shores of the River. However St. Thomas out of his pity gave away the money to the poor and could not build the palace. He was put in the prison. However that night the King’s brother Gad died and he was told the beautiful palace beside the river in the heavens was his brothers. He came back from the dead and told the story to the King. They were later converted to the Christian way.
     
    After ordaining one Xantippus (Xenophon) as deacon to the churches in North India St. Thomas traveled throughout India and converted many to Christianity . Among them are the names of: King of Mazdai, a noble lady by name Mygdonia, Tertia the queen of Mazdai. He was martyred outside the cities on a mountain at the hands of four soldiers.
     
    Local Tradition
     
    In almost complete support to the book there is a time honored tradition in Malabar which is handed down to us from generation to generation in the form of the songs of the Nazranis as Margom Kali. The other tradition comes from Veeradian pattu which is performed by a Hindu Caste on Christian festivals and is their heritage. Another written document is the Thomma Parvam written by Thomas Ramban in 1601 for use in the Niranam church.  This Thomas Ramban is a descendant of one of the first Brahmin convert to Christianity christened as Ramban Thomas during St. Thomas' visit.  The story is handed down through generations until it was written down in 1601.
     
    Apostle Thomas landed in Cranganoor (Kodungallur, Muziris) and took part in the wedding of Cheraman Perumal and proceeded to the courts of Gondophorus in North India. By the discovery of Trade winds, the sea route most favored from Yemen boarder to India was to Kerala. Trade winds were discovered in A.D. 45 by Hippalus and the merchant route to Kerala went directly to Yemeni Ports and then proceeded to the Spice route over Palestine.
     
    According to Thomma Parvom the visit of St. Thomas in Kerala lasted only eight days in the first instant. During this period the main converts were Jews who were settled in Malabar. (There was a large Jewish community in Cochin at that time) . During his second visit over three thousand became Christians. The first convert was a Brahmin from Maliyakal who became Thomas Maliyakal the Ramban. Among them were 75 Brahmin families along with Jews, Kshatriyas, Nairs and Chettiars. One Jewish prince by name Kepha (Peter) was later ordained as bishop when St. Thomas left for the rest of Kerala and India. The seven original churches established by St. Thomas were located at Malayankara (Malayattur), Palayur (near Chavakkad), Koovakayal (near North Paravur), Kokkamangalam (South Pallipuram), Kollam, Niranam and Nilackel (Chayal). Each local parish was self-administered, guided by a group of presbyters and presided over by the elder priest or episcopa (bishop).
     
    The King Gondophorus
     
    This King was a mystery figure until recently. No one knew of a King by that name or a Kingdom corresponding to the description given in the tradition. However excavations in both east and west of Indus has unearthed coins and inscriptions which made it clear that Gundaphorus was indeed a historical figure and that he belonged to the Parthian Dynasty from Takshasila (Taxila). On the obverse of the coin is the figure of King Gondophorus with his name inscribed clearly. On the reverse is the figure of Shiva with his trident and with the clear inscription in Greek“Maharaja- rajaraja-samahata- dramia-devavrata- Gundaphorasa.” The date of his reign is clearly marked in the Takth-i-Bahi stones kept in Lahore museum which is 17 inches long and 14 1/2 inches wide and states: “In the twenty-sixth year of the great King Gudaphoara, in the year three and one hundred, in the month of Vaishakh, on the fifth day” This places his ascension to the Kingdom as AD 19 and the year 103 corresponds to AD 46. Further evidence indicates that this King had a brother named Gad.
     
    Soon after, this kingdom was over ran by several invasions and the churches established in the Northern India vanished with the Parthian Empire without a trace. The Christian community seems to have gone underground with a strong vow of silence in the face of massacre and severe persecutions. Even today there is an underground Christian Sanyasi group who surfaces whenever there is a need to help the missions. Sadhu Sunder Singh reports that he had been taken care of by these secret sects on one of his Himalayan journeys.
     
    After leaving Taxila St. Thomas evangelized various parts of India and finally arrived in Madras where he was martyred by a tribal chief. His tomb can still be seen in Mylapore.
     
    Malankara Syrian Christians
     
    Malankara Syrian Christians today traces their heritage from the Apostle Thomas. Today they belong to various denominations such as the Orthodox Church, Mar Thoma church, St.Thomas Evangelical Church, Church of South India, Roman Catholic and other independent evangelicals.

    http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/marthoma/marthoma.htm

  22. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 7 years ago

    I think Vatican does not want that the findings should be shared with the world.

    1. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      but ur finding too is debatable ...you belief Christ died in India..where is archeological proof...what is said as prove is mere a tomb ..now whose tomb is that?..how can one prove that?...Buddhist books?..well if that is considered than we can't be selective in it...then we need to belief everything which has been written in Buddhist books...we can't choose as per our convenience and suitability...

      1. ajuvr profile image34
        ajuvrposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        shame on earth;we have invariably chosen  convenience, leave alone buddha or jesus, we are deprived of sense in deciding over ecological challenges and human rights violations and playing foul with ethnic, religious and territorial absurdity. PITIFUL .

      2. profile image70
        paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I don't mind discussing the issues. Access the following linkes; if you may:
        http://www.archive.org/stream/crucifixi … h_djvu.txt
        http://www.harisingh.com/news2C1a.htm

        For everybody, please

 
working