Jesus was born in very volatile period ...Jews revolted twice during jesus's lifetime...Kingdom of god , god's rule etc where popular slogans and larger part of masses believed it would be end time soon and god would intervened...Many preached in those lines and one of such preacher was jesus who was made into what he is perceived today...
But imagine jesus was born in 1980 and he would be preaching today or claiming to be healing people...how would todays people react to it?...Would he be taken seriously?
No I don't think he would be. The Church has its doctrines so firmly rooted that if Jesus was here speaking against them, he would be considered a false prophet under the influence of Satan.
@dis jesus under influence of satan?...well jews believed 2k yrs back and still believe that jesus was most influential as well as most damaging of all false prophets...
Why would jesus need to CLAIM he heals people? If we can see the miracles then there would be no doubt.
Are kidding? People back then could see the miracles and they still didn't believe! Look into any Jewish history of the time and they will claim that Jesus was just one of a number of "wonder workers" running around at the time. People SAW the wonders, yet for everyone who did believe, there were as many who didn't, and many of the ones who did turned away!
The gullible would believe as the gullible flock to see christian healers today. We all know it's staged right. Magicians can work magic. Present day magicians have gotten more cleaver recently and started using editing. The gullible are taken advantage of.
I wasn't around 2k years ago, but at the time a small number of people were followers, the rest were not convinced. To be convinced one would have to see the miracles with ones own eyes and they would have to be big. Not making the blind see because that could be staged. Not turning water into wine because that is petty. It would have to be something big like instantaneously turning the sahara into swamp land.
You're right, you weren't around 2k years ago. Back then, most people just accepted that there were "gods." There wasn't some large contingent of "educated skeptics" who didn't "fall" for Jesus or anybody else. The people who didn't believe in Jesus still believed in something and for most of them they were expecting a Messiah, Jesus just didn't fill their bill.
And the blind who were made to see were blind people who everybody knew was blind since birth or similar circumstances. The healing of skin diseases were people everyone could see. The lame man had friends who knew he was lame and carried him to Jesus themselves. Jesus was not some snake-oil man, traveling from distant town to town with his own couterie of people staging His "miracles." He spent almost His whole life and ministry in the area where He grew up and people would know Him and His family!
Skepticism is not a bad mindset in and of itself, but you still need to look at the facts as they are.
How do you know?
Yes, but facts are not necessarily found in 'good news stories' ~ ie gospels.
But it goes back to the fact that specific times and places were cited, and there were plenty of people (even with the most critical and skeptical timeline) who were there and knew the people involved and could have said differently. Even Jesus' family thought He was nuts, but two of His brothers eventually became church leaders.
What facts as they are? Possibly you are referring to the fact that all but a few people thought Jesus was a fraud. Or are you referring to the fact that all you have is heresy evidence that Jesus even existed. Or perhaps the fact that no first hand documentation exists of Jesus.
If the people of his time thought he was a fraud, why would you trust the writings of 4 people who never meet him?
The four people DID meet Him, claimed to see Him after the resurrection, went to their deaths (well, one of them did, the other lived a long but miserable life) when all they would have had to say was, "Hail Caesar! Just a joke! Pass the matzo!" and whamo! no beheading!
You are right in one respect, either it was a complete forgery beginning to end (and wow, who would pay the ultimate price for a known forgery?) or there is truth in it. But you need to give ancient peoples more credit. They didn't take everything on blind faith. The fact is that at one point MOST (yes, MOST) of the people around Jesus believed He was who He said He was! But they were expecting a Messiah that would lead an armed rebellion against the Romans, not one who said "Repent of your sins and let the Romans worry about themselves!"
You said you read the Bible, man!
Only according to the gospels, which relied on each other, were written well after the events, had no corroborative evidence except each other and could have been pure invention.
"well after" is still within the lifetimes of people who would have been firsthand witnesses. The lack of negative reaction may not be definitive in-and-of itself but should not be discounted.
Yes, the "synoptic" Gospels did make use of each other, but not exclusively. And Luke did not write a synoptic Gospel.
I think it worth considering that widespread theories about the fabrication of Christian writings being a relatively recent development.
Corroborative evidence back in the 1st Century is not like corroborative evidence in the 21st. But in one respect you are on the right track (if I read you correctly,) if one part of it was made up then it was probably all made up, right down to the existences of Peter and Paul. Whether or not true, it would be much less problematic explanation than that there is partial truth.
Nonsense, there are still blind people and lame people and people with skin diseases. It was all snake-oil.
I understand there were many such mentally disturbed men going around preaching all kinds of ridiculous things during that time. If you believe I think the Jesus as represented in Scriptures existed, not a chance.
How do you know where jesus spent most of his life and ministry? Theres a huge gap between his twelfth and 30th years in your bible
He was at boarding school, then Nazareth Community Collge, then University of Jerusalem, and then matriculating for his master's and Ph.D. in social work and Christian studies.
Well, I guess that depends on whether you believe Jesus was actually Jewish (as the Bible claimed) or if He was actually some kind of proto-New Agey guy.
I don't actually know what you're getting at, but the fact is that as a good Jewish boy (who everyone in His hometown knew and knew His family) the likelihood that He would have gone around from town to town staging miracles is extremely small. If He had, all other things being equal, He would have gathered a large crowd around Him and probably died in obscurity like many of the other wonder workers of that time.
Did you know that, according to the OT, a priest could not be ordained until he was 30 (Numbers 4:3, 4:47)? Jesus, in order to fulfill His role as priest, could not violate that law, so His ministry didn't start until He was 30. That is why, when He was confronted by John before the baptism, His response was that it must be done to "fulfill all righteousness."
And did you know, according to the OT, you are permitted to sell your daughter into slavery? How much did you get for yours?
One would expect the messiah's life to be covered to the fullest by writers during his time, not skip over 20 years of his life with no mention of his whereabouts.
And did you know...did you know...did you know...
I know that you're not the first person to throw that at me.
What we call "slavery" was more like indentured servitude. It wasn't slavery for life. Nor was it chattel slavery like in antebellum America. And during the Year of Jubilee you had to free the slaves.
As opposed to surrounding cultures where slavery was exactly that, with no redemption and no rights.
No, what we call "slavery" was indeed slavery, by definition, and what we call "indentured servitude" was indentured servitude, by definition. There is a difference that is common knowledge for many, but you appear to be dishonestly denying that fact.
Again, notice how religion makes good people do bad things?
So there was no actual word for the type of human bondage you infer was referenced in the Bible, so they used the word "slave" instead? Very interesting concept.
So how did the church get away with justifying slavery, as they used scripture as an excuse for first allowing it? Dang Chris, if you had been there to straighten out those church leaders as to what the Bible really said, you could have saved the lives of so many innocent victims of slavery.
But more than likely, you would have been tortured terribly for disagreeing with God's spokesmen. So, too bad for the slaves, but lucky for you. Go figure!
Are you actually that stupid?
No, you're not. So don't ever, ever, EVERY imply that I support slavery in any context. The church did a lot of things that the church should not have done and I have been the first to say so. Many people within the church used Scripture to support slavery and many people used Scripture to oppose slavery. What the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages was reprehensible on so many levels and for you to think I endorse it for a second just shows that either you're not paying attention or you just like to yell.
No, but you apparently have a problem understanding my posts, so I'll refrain from labeling your lack of comprehension as stupidity. Show me where I accused you of supporting slavery in my post. I merely said you could have straightened out the believers of the day with your profound knowledge of what the bible REALLY meant to suggest.
No one is yelling except perhaps you, but fortunately, I can't discern the volume you are using in your posts. But since you know what your god really wants and I don't, perhaps he's given you powers to hear my voice and dis cypher biblical scripture better than the pope could during slavery days. But we both know some other BETTER messengers will one day simply disclaim your interpretation of scripture and words as they always have.
Chris Neal, Prophet of God. Gather around people while The Prophet Chris shows us the way, the truth, or in reality, his opinion.
I've never claimed to be a prophet. I've always claimed just the opposite. If you've read my other posts you'd know how much I struggle. I don't look for things to make fun of in you.
I don't exist in a vacuum. I don't have special knowledge of the Bible that no one else has. And I'm neither ignorant of nor in denial of history. Many things "the church" did were things the Bible would have expressly prohibited. They weren't right. And many Christians said so.
You were pretty cavalier with your barbs about "good for me, but bad for the slaves." If you weren't accusing me of at least being indifferent about slavery, if not supportive of it, that's what I got from it.
I rarely yell, Randy. But I would like to think that people who have been talking to me for as long as you have would know me better than that last paragraph showed.
Well then, I would wonder why you would recommend others listen to you at all, because if you are indeed not a prophet, then you may be responsible for interfering with the "free will" of others by influencing them with your opinions about Christianity. You are so sure you are right that you feel impelled to tell others what is right and wrong. In fact, some like you feel it is their duty to do so. Isn't that right? If not, then why are you here?
And what if you are wrong and those you have influenced choose the wrong god, and you know you cannot prove there aren't lots of them, don't you? But at least you'll have company in whatever punishment the real god deals out to you, because YOU convinced them you were right! Quite a burden to bear, Brother Chris!
By that very logic you do the same, and have the same potential for guilt.
What if you are wrong? What if there is a God and you influence them to believe there's not? And then they all have to be face to face with Him? You are so sure you are right that you even feel free to mock others based on nothing other than your contention there is no God, therefor anything is okay.
Randy the Prophet! Gather around and listen to him expound on the failings of others! Why? Because he's right! And it is his sworn and beholden duty to make sure that people who disagree with him feel the full brunt of his wrath!
And you too will have plenty of company. I mean if not, then why are you here?
Not trying to get at anything. Just wondering how you could possibly know anything about Jesus' life in the missing years.
You are just making things up. Like Christians like to do.
I dont believe he even existed. The whole bible is a metaphor.
What Christians tend to leave out, is that under Jewish law, you couldn't have a beard unless you were married (Jesus is described as having a beard), and you couldn't teach unless you were married. These things of course, have no bearing on anything according to them.
They will only counter with "Yes, but Jesus was a Baptist, not a Jew"!
So single males were forced to break the no-razor law?
Um, really though, do state your sources. I can't seem to find a reference to what you're talking about.
And keep in mind also that some have theorized that Jesus WAS married and he wasn't exactly simpatico with the Jewish lawmakers anyway.
I love how you guys make things up. Where does it say in the bible that jesus was married? I know thats wasnt what you said, but a theory isnt something thats just pulled out of your @$$.
If youre going to claim the bible is true, at least be consistant.
There's some circumstantial non-biblical evidence that Jesus was married, perhaps even to Mary Magdeline. I personally don't give it much credence, I'm just throwing it out as an alternate interpretation. I don't think the Bible ever specifically states that he WASN'T married, but it would also seem strange tat his marriage is never mentioned if he was.
But I'm honestly just trying to figure out where this beard rule came from. The law as laid down in Leviticus sure seems to imply that NO adult male should EVER be clean shaven. To this day, very strict Jews debate whether even scissors or electric razors (which cut blade against blade instead of blade against skin as is expressly forbidden) are an acceptable way to trim facial hair very close to the skin.
You do know there were many books simply tossed out of the whole religious collection because the church didn't agree with what they said, don't you? The Bible didn't simply appear as it is now by any stretch of the imagination.
The entire works have been edited and censored on many occasions in the past centuries. No one actually knows for sure is any of it is true. The books left out are actually much more interesting than those the zealous--not inspired by any means--religious scholars agreed on. And yes, they had agendas of their own.
Of course if you don't believe He existed, then anything I say would be pointless.
But the fact is that if you actually read the Bible and know anything about Jewish culture at the time, then what I said about the subject is indeed the most likely route things took.
But the blanket assertion that I'm a liar simply because I'm a Christian is really ironic.
Jesus had to be born when He was in order to fulfill the prophecies, including being hung on a tree. Crucifixion is not practiced today.
Howver, to answer your philospohical question: He would certainly gather a large following and come into conflict with the established church of the day (which would most certainly not be Christian, since He wouldn't have come yet.) His teachings, which regularly challenged the religious institutions, would have guaranteed His trouble.
There are folks like that today and they are taken seriously, but only by the gullible and ignorant.
We now know today there is no such thing as miracles such as healing people and the charlatans and frauds who practice such voodoo are easily exposed as such.
First of all, there is no proof that Jesus actually existed at all. It is still a matter of some debate.
Secondly, I am guessing that, if Jesus lived today, a few people would take him seriously, but not many, and he would probably be considered a bit odd.
Actually there's as much proof for the life of Jesus as there is for the life of Julius Caesar.
LOLOLOL that you need to lie for your religion - all this does is convince us it is utter garbage.
But - go ahead and list 50 contemporary historical references to this Jesus person.
You first, list 50 contemporary references that say He never existed.
I dare you.
There is absolutely no proof at all that Jesus ever existed.
There is interpretation and there is some unreliable evidence ~ that's all.
There's Pliny, who wrote about His influence.
There's the Talmud, that wrote that He wasn't who He said He was.
There were the Gospels, and before you jump on that let me point out that they were all written within the lifetimes of people who would have been in the places mentioned at the times mentioned, and they were widely known. Yet not one single contemporary of the writers ever said, "No, He didn't exist. No carpenter named (Jesus, Yeshua, what have you) was there." There were no, "I was there," or even "My cousin was there, and it never happened." Many disputed who He was, no one disputed whether He existed. That's a purely modern development.
Why would there be contemporary references that say he never existed?
So - you know of no references to this person then? And this is proof he existed? More proof than Julius Caesar existing? Got me confused. I guess I am confused because I thought you had some actual evidence. When - you do not.
Which - as you claim there is more evidence of this person than there is of Julius Caesar - this makes you a liar.
And as you claim to be Christian - this simply reinforces my opinion of your religion.
Yes, that would kind of defeat the object
He has cited Pliny, the Talmud and the Gospels.
I asked for contemporary historical references. I have looked and never found any. So I rather take offense when some one tells me there is plenty of evidence.
I take further offense when my intelligence is insulted further by insisting I provide historical references that say he did not exist.
This is why their religion causes so many fights.
I'm guessing that this is because none have ever been found ~ probably because none exist?
I wonder if anyone will come up with anything? I'd be genuinely amazed
Yet you think nothing of insulting my intelligence. Interesting.
Who, among the contemporaries, ever contradicted the Gospels? I mean, what account has ever surfaced from someone who was there (and many people were there) at Galilee, or the Jordan, or Jerusalem, who said, "No, it didn't happen like that. I was there." Or, "My cousin was there," or "my uncle." People at that time were not stupid, they didn't just automatically go around willy-nilly believing anything they were told. It certainly makes us modern men feel better to think so, but it's not.
Pliny didn't deal with just one guy and conclude there was a movement. He had a belly-full of them and thought they were nuts. But movements don't appear out of thin air. And they don't continue for 2000 years if there's nothing there.
Twleve men claimed to see him, eleven of them died gruesomely but could have avoided it by simply saying, "No, you're right, I was making it up." If Peter and Paul had simply gone back to being Jews, they would have been given a pass by the Romans.
You may be the exception, but my experience with hard-line atheists is that they demand what they would never accept if they received it. And they may be fully sincere when they say, "But I would accept it if you just give me exactly what I asked for!" And they get so hung up on one sign that they miss a thousand smaller signals.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong. Show me the evidence and I will start believing this person existed. So - no movement that is not based on real facts? No - movements don't appear out of thin air. In my experience - they are easy to manufacture.
Please stop insulting my intelligence. Thank you.
Yes, they were very stupid and yes they did believe most anything they were told, especially when it came to gods and religion.
You just contradicted yourself as you indirectly make claim to there being only one religion in the world, yours. Even slavery was alive and kicking much longer than 2000 years.
How dishonest of you to say so when it is entirely the atheists ultimate goal IS to accept what they receive as evidence.
Mark, there's little I could do that would not reinforce your opinion of my religion. If I were to cite a literal 50 contemporary examples of His existence, you would claim they were made up, or about somebody else, or interpreted incorrectly.
Just like a survey of history shows that if religion were removed from the scene, people would still fight.
Do you have anything to your hostility beyond a few broad accusations? What do you cite for your antipathy?
I simply do not like liars.
You claimed there was more evidence of the existence of Jesus than there is of the existence of Julius Caesar.
I asked you to provide some.
There are no contemporary references to this person - so you are a liar.
The very fact that you say "If I were to cite a literal 50 contemporary examples of His existence, you would claim they were made up, or about somebody else, or interpreted incorrectly." - as though you could cite 50 contemporary references that were not made up reinforces the fact that you are dishonest.
Yes - if you cited 50 - they would be lies. That is fact - not me refusing to accept the truth of your statements.
Why not just be honest and admit that there is no evidence of the existence of Jesus outside the bible?
Thank you, Mark. I knew you would prove my point for me. I just didn't expect it so quickly!
How did I prove your point exactly?
There are no contemporary references and I would reject any that you offered as lies because they would be lies? OK then.
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts. Thank you for proving my point. Shocking really - I would have thought that you guys would at least try and follow what the Invisible Super Being tells you to do.
I do want to thank you - genuinely. People like you who lie for religion are what convinced me it was garbage.
I am interested though and I have a question for you.
Rather than imply that I am dishonest and would simply reject this proof you have been keeping hidden - why not simply be honest and admit that there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus?
Maybe there's not literally "more," but there's certainly not "none."
There's proof He existed.
That's not proof. That's the unreliable evidence that I mentioned.
Proof needs to be contemporary and corroborated and clear.
Proof is not something written many years after the event, or possibly forged, or that can be misconstrued.
I have books about Robin Hood. Are they proof that he existed?
By that very level of evidence, I now believe you to be a Romanian teenager sitting at your computer having fun with stupid Americans.
Try subjecting the evidence to the rules thereof, not the biases of the Jesus Seminar.
Do I have to be insulted?
I am a 50+ Englishwoman, with a degree in history from a very good university. I have read up on this and related issues for decades. I do not need to look at the 'Jesus Seminar'.
I do not mean to insult you. I was trying to make a point and sometimes I get carried away. I apologize.
But the accusation of forgery against the Gospels does not stand up to actual scrutiny. I'm a 45+ American (if age and nationality really mean that much) and have studied this for decades. Both pro and con.
So to say that "there is absolutely no proof that Jesus ever existed" is interpretation at best. And not one that stands up well if people are really objective.
His divinity is more open to debate. If He were alive today and doing the things He did then, He would gather a large crowd of supporters and He would have a large crowd of detractors.
Just like He did back then.
You brought up age and nationality; not me.
I am simply looking at facts.
Based upon the evidence, Jesus may have existed as a man, or as a character in stories, or as a divinity.
There is no actual proof that he was a real man, as opposed to a mythological character. That's not me being awkward; that's just the truth.
If there were no doubts about the truth of his existence, then there would be no need to discuss the issue ~ but people do discuss it, write books on it, etc.
I know that there are expert non-Christian historians, who are convinced that there is enough evidence for his existence as a real man, but, even so, actual proof does not exist.
Thus, the evidence is open to interpretation.
There are lots of stories circulating about Robin Hood, and I have yet to see anything from the Middle Ages stating that he didn't actually exist, but that does not make him real. On the other hand, I know historians, who have interpreted the evidence and who think that he was, indeed, real, or, at least, based upon a real character. We don't know.
Much the same way can be said about Jesus.
As I said, there is evidence and there is interpretation ~ and I know that one can interpret the evidence to show that it is likely that Jesus was a real man. But that is still not proof.
I think that it is quite possible that Jesus existed, but it is also possible that he was a mythological invention, based on divine predecessors.
Or, of course, he may have been a combination of the two.
The age and nationality was to illustrate the point that since I don't have any corroborating, contemporary evidence, you could be anybody. It was certainly not meant as an insult.
All right, here's a fact. We know what happened to most of the disciples. If you accept the tradition, we know what happened to all of them. With one exception, they all died violent deaths, and they all died violent deaths as a direct result of the very story that some people want to claim as forgery. And the one who died of natural causes lived a fairly miserable time much of it. All they had to do to be left alone was assert their Jewishness, they would have gotten a pass from the Romans. Who in their right mind would want to go through that for a lie? And remember, these men all claimed to have seen Him with their own eyes. And I mean after the Resurrection!
I understand the analogy with Robin Hood, but nobody ever claimed that Robin Hood healed anybody, let alone came to die and save men from their sins.
Individual pieces can certainly be interpreted, but the aggregate points to His existence on Earth. The doubts of His existence are relatively recent.
Chris, you raise a very good point about the disciples. If it can be shown that they existed and how they died, then we can safely infer that they died as a result of their beliefs and testimony. Now if Jesus never did exist, or was not who he claimed to be, these disciples would not have died as martyrs.
Interestlingly, I have been thinking about this, because, if the disciples were factual, then Jesus most likely was, too. But I couldn't actually find anything definite on the subject.
Recently, though, I did come across something. I think that it must have been a documentary. I'll have to try to remember who the presenters were. Anyway, they claimed that there actually is no real evidence for these disciples, either.
Also, they indicated that the stories of other Christian martyrs were mostly invented, too.
I actually thought, based on some of the strange content in the NT, that Jesus probably did exist, but that his story had been changed considerably. However, I can see that his story may just have been woven out of prophecies, earlier myths, etc,.
So I don't know.
Many authors ~ believers and non-believers - feel sure that they have evidence of the real Jesus. And maybe they do have interesting evidence. I certainly enjoy reading about it (I recommend James Tabor) but it's not proof. Not yet.
I don't have a problem with Jesus being real. I think that a real Jesus would have a fascinating story. I just like people to acknowledge that his existence has not yet been proven. Many people seem to think that it has
Okay, you forced my hand you sly person you...
First of all, I've also seen various documentaries claiming everything from Jesus being a "super-Moses" to Jesus being a fabrication out of the mythology of India (!) It hasn't been all that convincing.
The reason I know that Jesus is real is because of a series of experiences that I've had. Most of them have not been "supernatural" in the way that most people think of them as (although I have had those.) But the presence of God has been proved to me over and over.
I am not skipping specifics because I'm light on them, but because I know that some people are more likely to assault a person verbally who has claimed such experiences. I do not make any assumption that you are such a person (although two such people I know have been reading what I write in this forum) but I tend to doubt that you would listen with an uncritical ear. A polite one, I have no doubt, but not an uncritical one. If you would care to "hear" my story, though, I of course would be more than happy to share.
I accept that you have experienced something that you perceive as God / Jesus in your life. Fair enough. You may be surprised to hear that I, too, have experienced what might be termed 'the supernatural'. I cannot explain it. That is why I am agnostic rather than atheist.
I can undersrand that you feel certain, but, even a personal experience such a this, cannot be put forward as proof ~ not in the way that we were discussing it.
Which is why I didn't give the specifics. Yes, a lot of people "experience the supernatural" and I don't discount their experiences, even if I don't always agree with their analysis.
It IS proof, it just depends on how willing you are to really think through the implications.
So - why do you need to lie and say you think Jesus was real because of the historical evidence? Because over on another thread you are busy preaching at us that lying keeps you out of heaven.
Why not just say you know by majik instead? Did Jesus tell you into your head to lie about it? Do you have a free get-out-of-hell card? Did the other "witnesses," lie as well? Probably huh?
DO you understand why this is the sort of behavior that has convinced me (and many other) that your religion is hypocritical nonsense?
Imagine the lies and deceit that went on when people believed in majik more than they do now and you were murdered for not believing?
Wow - do you think that could be the whole basis for the Christ myth? I think I am on to something - what say you?
Liars for Jesus (TM)
This, Mark, is how I can say you prove my point for me!
I see. And how is pointing out that you are a liar making your point for you exactly?
Seriously - I am keen to know why you prefer to lie rather than tell the truth in the first place?
As you are preaching that lying will keep you from heaven - surely this means you are going to hell?
Odd you keep dodging my questions.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
@mark I am not lying. You may not believe me but I am not telling a deliberate falsehood.
People like you, Mark, and I mean the sort of hard-line atheist who attempts to intellectualize things, you may be smarter than I am. I'm the first to admit that I'm not the brightest bulb in the socket, though I'm not the dimmest either. Dawkins is smarter on his worst day than I am on my best. But he, like you and a couple of others I've talked to, seem to suffer from a lack of, well, imagination. In person you may be charming and affable with a good sense of humor but on these forums you tend to be as dogmatic as any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard.
It's sort of like, "I will believe hypothesis A if elements A1, A2 and A3 all fall into place exactly the way I want. If they don't all fall exactly into place the way I want, then not only is hypothesis A not true but there is absolutely no permutation of the hypothesis that could possibly be true! And therefore, all people who posit hypothesis A are knowing, bald-faced liars!"
That's how you come off to me. It's possible to disagree with someone without stating that they are liars. A bit of imagination and a few manners go a long way.
But - you lied to me. You claimed that there was more contemporary historical evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Caesar existed.
When I asked you to provide this evidence you dodged the question and implied that if you did provide this evidence - I would ignore it and say it was a lie.
Which - I would - because it would be a lie.
Now it appears that you know Jesus was real because of experiences you have had.
So - my question stands - why did you lie in the first place?
If you're simply going to prove my point again (and again, and again) then why do you keep coming back at me?
Is the world really a better place because you can't let anything go or say that maybe someone got a little carried away or perhaps even adjusted his own argument?
I'm not saying there is not truth, of course I believe there is. But if you can't let any little thing go and crow over every little thing as if you'd just won some great moral victory, then you are doomed to be right, and it's a terrible thing to be right all by yourself.
I repeat - how is me pointing out that you are a liar proving your point?
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
It is a simple enough question. You lied about evidence for the existence of Jesus. Why did you do that? Why not be honest and admit that there is none? Why the need to lie and risk eternal damnation?
And don't you think that the fact that you are prepared to lie and make up stuff to "prove jesus," that - perhaps - earlier "defenders of the faith," did the same thing and you are simply perpetuating a lie?
Before this goes any farther, refresh my memory on one thing. I know I wrote to Trish M that there was more evidence, because I had heard that a few different places. Because I couldn't remember where, I admitted there might not be more, but there was certainly not none.
Did I also write to you that there was more evidence for Christ than Caesar?
Then I say to you what I said to her.
I might have been wrong about there being "more" but there certainly isn't "none."
Now, if you want to count an honest mistake as a lie, then that is your right and you may claim your victory. I certainly hope that it means you never, ever make any mistakes
Just remember an old saying: If you're going to insist on being absolutely right, then you'd better always be absolutely right.
I am absolutely right.
An honest mistake that there is more evidence that Jesus existed than Caesar did?
I am not interested in "winning" I just wonder why you lie about your faith. Instead of being honest and saying that you believe in Jesus because of "personal experience," - why the lies and BS?
There is no contemporary historical evidence - none. Are you simply not aware of this?
And if you will lie about it - is it not reasonable to assume that past believers - upon which you are apparently basing your information - also lied?
In spite of my better judgement, I will undertake this one more time.
There is contemporary evidence that Jesus existed. It was accepted for over a thousand years. People looked into it. The skepticism is recent. The denial of His existence is recent. I am not lying when I say it. There may not be more evidence for His existence than Caesar's, but to say that I am openly spreading something that I know to be false when I say it is itself false.
I have had experiences and I stand by them but they are not the sum total of my beliefs or faith.
I am aware that if you insist on telling me and others that I am a blatant liar then no matter what you say, you are intent on winning. I am as adamant in my belief as you are in yours. And I have thought it out just as much.
I will admit and apologize for errors but I will not bend to the will of someone who wants to make me say something I know is not true.
Then please show me this contemporary evidence.
You are a liar - you lied when you said there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar - now this was a "mistake."?
There is no contemporary evidence. None. The denial of his existence is recent because until not long ago to deny his existence was a death warrant.
Except in the early days, when to confirm His existence was a death warrant.
If you want to cite the history, cite the whole history.
I've gone over the history. You've already stated you won't accept any of it because "it's all lies."
Your circular logic is as airtight as anything you accuse me of.
(Religious people are liars. Since they are liars, everything they say about their religion is a lie. Since they tell lies, religious people are liars.)
And you say you're not interested in "winning" because?
What history is this exactly? Oh - the myth of Christian persecution?
No - I said you are a liar. You. You lied about this so-called evidence. You lied that there is contemporary evidence. You lied that there was more evidence of Jesus than Caesar. You also accused me of being dishonest.
You have not gone over any history - yet another lie.
Now you are repeating another lie that you have also not bothered to research.
My logic is not as you quoted. Please stop lying about me - thanks.
There is no contemporary evidence. People who say there is are liars. Therefore you are a liar. You.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
The only way I "win," is if I get you to actually think and research before saying this nonsense. Seriously - go do some research before claiming things as "history."
OK, you made a mistake, didn't check the history and got carried away, because you are convinced that you know in your heart that Jesus existed.
I do not have a problem with this, but ...
Your argument is repeated, regularly, by many Christians.
You must have heard it yourself, somewhere.
Christians on forums tell me, often, that there is more evidence for Jesus than for Caesar. So when I hear it, yet again, I just feel demoralised and frustrated ~ and annoyed.
Christians mock and deride historians over evidence and scientists over evolution. It is insulting, so people, naturally, become angry.
Peace to you, too.
No, you're right. I did hear it in a few places and did let myself get carried away. I do usually try to be more careful than that since I frequently argue from history. I should have been more careful.
Hi, again, Chris
Well, well, well!
You may be interested to know that even an eminent agnostic professor seems to agree with you, in one of his interviews:
Today, I listened to an online discussion, where Bart Ehrman, the historian and author, was being interviewed ~ and this is how it went:
Reginald Finley: 'There really isn't any hardcore evidence, though ~ any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist',
Ehrman: 'I disagree with that. What hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed?'
However, in a printed interview, he seems to change his mind a bit:
"According to [Mythicists'], Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man. Most importantly, these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again."
He notes: "Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible ..."
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376 … case"
I think you miss Ehrman's point - there isn't any "hardcore" evidence of much of anything from 2000 years ago. What we rely on is secondary evidence, and in that category the differences between Jesus and Julius Caesar is staggering.
First, Jesus is not documented in any contemporary texts nor was his image or his name used on any artifact, and there is not a word that Jesus wrote to be found anywhere. There is nothing. He may as well have been a ghost.
Julius Caesar, on the other hand, wrote two works about the events in his own life.
Second, no contemporary historian or Roman ever mentioned Jesus by name nor was his trial and execution recorded by the Romans.
Meanwhile, Sallust, a contemporary of Julius Caesar, wrote about Caesar and was made governor of Numerica by Caesar. Cicero, a contemporary, received letters from Caesar and wrote about him to others. Catullus, a contemporary, wrote about Caesar in poetry. Paterculus wrote about Caesar in Historia Romana. There is also archaeological evidence for battles fought by Caesar.
It's about time this particular Christian Urban Legend is laid to rest because the historical evidence for Julius Caesar is staggering - it's just that it is all second-hand, as is the case with most ancient history.
I agree with you about this 'urban legend' ~ and just to be absolutely sure of my facts, I contacted a well respected 'Roman' historian, to check.
However, I'm not at all sure that I did misunderstand what Ehrman was saying.
Did you listen to the interview?
Here are two more quotes:
'I don't think that there is any serious historian, who doubts the existence of Jesus.'
'There is hard evidence, I think.'
So he seems to think that there is as much 'hard evidence' for JC as there is for JC.
And he may be right about his fellow historians having no doubts about the existence of Jesus. He couldn't think of one who did not accept Jesus as a historical figure.
Quite obviously, Jesus could have been real.
And there are ways of reading and interpreting the NT, so as to find clues, which indicate that he was, or may have been, real.
But proof? Or even hard, contemporary, reliable evidence?
~ No. I would say definitely not.
I did not listen but have read Ehrman. He began as a fundamental believ3e and his agnosticism came about due to the nature of evil, not from history or biblical errors.
I think there must have been a rabbi named Jesus, but after that is gets quite murky - much more murky than any claims about Julius Caesar.
The problem of evil has probably been the biggest stumbling block in history for most people.
Interesting article, haven't had a chance to watch the video. One thing that the mythicists say that seems to be accepted on face value by so many but I don't understand is the assertion that the Gospel writers never met Jesus. I assume there is some kind of academic reasoning behind that and it's not simply an assertion because it sounds good to the mythicists, but I would like to know what it is. It frankly doesn't sound reasonable to me.
It is based on the dates the Gospels were written and investigations that make it highly unlikely any of them were written by the supposed authors.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Only if you tend to go with the later dates, which I'm sure you won't be surprised if I don't.
Although I'm not an expert on the subject, one consistent strain that I notice in the arguments is that those who argue for an earlier date overwhelmingly believe the Gospels beforehand and those who argue for a later date overwhelmingly reject the Gospels beforehand. The reasons for belief or rejection do not matter for this point, it is still pretty consistent.
Arguments for the earlier dates make sense to me, but I admit that I believe the Gospels, both for reasons of personal experience and reasons of my reading about the dating and whether they would be earlier or later.
But - the experts disagree with you. There is no argument for the earlier dates. Please stop taking me for an idiot. Pulling this stuff out of nowhere just makes you look bad.
Just because you believe in majik is no answer. Why even bother to try and make it look reasonable if that is your answer?
The experts are mostly religious scholars and theologians. You think they decided the gospels were written later because they already decided to reject them?
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
The experts who disagree with me, disagree with me.
The experts who agree with me, agree with me.
You say that those who disagree with you are not experts simply because they disagree with you.
That does not sound reasonable to me.
There are no experts who agree with you. The experts who disagree with you have not overwhelmingly rejected the gospels beforehand.
Lying to me simply reinforces my opinion of your religion. I would appreciate it if you stopped insulting my intelligence in this fashion. No moral compass - that is your problem.
I agree, your coninuing to lie to me at every available opportunity is degrading and only makes you look bad. I can't believe that you could possibly hold a different opinion from mine, any honest individual would be incapable of such an action, therefor I tell you again that your lying to me every chance you get is just horrible.
How odd. I have not lied to you. You on the other hand have lied to me. You are simply making stuff up to defend a religious belief.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
I dont believe you. Anyone as insistent as you are on labeling someone who has never told them a lie as a liar only has one of three reasons. You seem pretty intelligent, so that can't be it. You don't seem to have some mental disorder, so that can't be it. That leaves the last reason, that you must be consistently calling me a liar to cover up the fact that you yourself are constantly lying and throw suspicion off yourself. I simply cannot imagine that you truly could hold a different opinion than mine so you must therefor be a liar.
I am calling you a liar because you are a liar. Simple really. Best to attack me though - I think that is what Jesus would have done.
I agree, you simply are a liar. And the best way to keep me on the defensive was to attack me with no provocation and no reason. And the brilliance of it is, I almost fell for it!
So you can dish it out but you can't take it, eh?
Thin skin and limited imagination. I didn't think you would get what I was saying but I wanted to believe better of you than that.
Perhaps it's because the authors of the gospels are unknown with most being written in Greek long after the lifespan of anyone knowing the supposed savior. Why do you think the gospels are prefaced with "according to" instead of "by" John, Matthew, etc.?
The earliest supposed gospel was around 35 years after the Crucifixion was supposed to have taken place. This was the Gospel according to Mark, if I'm not mistaken. I believe some of the others were written hundreds of years later.
And you believe wrong, unless you believe that the "Gospels" of Thomas, Judas and Mary actually qualify.
You might. You're not a believer.
But the "evidence" that the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT wait hundreds of years. And they were all written within the lifetime those who met Jesus.
Again, I am reading a blanket acceptance of the assertion, but unless the old assertion that 40 was the average lifespan of human beings back then has now become synonymous with 40 being the maximum lifespan (and I've read people who equate the words "average" and "maximum" without any seeming thought) then I'm going to need at least some references. I can say they met Jesus and you can say they never met Jesus and right at this moment, for someone not knowing anything other than my post and yours, that's all it is, two people saying.
Feel free to show me the proof of when the gospels were written and who they were authored by if you can find such, Chris. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence the writers ever knew Jr. at all.
And I certainly hope anyone not knowing anything about these writers would look further than either you or I for their info before risking their souls for eternity.
You first. What is this overwhelming evidence that the writers of the Gospels never knew Jesus?
The destruction of the Temple is not referenced in the Gospels or in Acts. If you were writing something hundreds of years after the fact, then wouldn't you want to add in this fact that turned history since you already recorded Jesus predicting it?
Again, the assumption that the writers never met Jesus seems just that. In the 20+ years I've been looking at this, the time frame for this has lengthened considerably. When I was 25, most skeptics assumed (and "assumed" is the word) that the earliest writing was about 50 years after the fact. Now it's 100. And the assumption that ancient men were even less capable of remembering things than modern men are has also grown. So, frankly, I've yet to see any convincing evidence. I've looked at some sites on the Net, but they almost always start with the assumption that evidence for them meeting doesn't exist. The ones that don't refernce writing that does. Actual references (you know, the proof?) would be nice, rather than starting from the assumption that the negative is self evident and only idiots can't see that.
I think it's important to understand how God put Jesus in the scene over 2000 years ago. As a believer, I speak subjectively on the matter, so take it as you will..., nevertheless, this is on the same lines as "why does God let bad things happen to good people?" As Christians, we're told to have faith, nothing more/less. Like everyone else - whomever - I have questions and don't often understand God's ways....
If he was claiming to heal people, of course not. If he was healing people, some would take him seriously. About like it was back then.
@emile recently a god man is India is in news for healing many...still majority are not taking him seriously....docs call such healing as psychological healing methods which do work in many cases....2k yrs back people believed in that part of earth that disease is due to sin and such healers like jesus where common...yes in developed countries of those era , where medical science was evolving , healing was done by professionals and not by spiritual healers...
No, jesus would be in a mental institution, drooling and shot full of haloperidol
@janesix mental institute?...now thats harsh ...kindly elaborate..
Thinking you are a deity is a sure sign of psychosis. Believe me,i know.
@janesix but who knows what jesus actually thought...what we know is he died and after his death some unknown mark wrote first gosphel....jesus was not considered diety till 3rd century...first generation chrisitians where trying to convince jews that jesus is messiah not diety...
Maybe yet he was walking around claiming to be the son of god.
Two classic signs of acute psychosis
"Believe me I know". Have you previously claimed to be a deity?
If, in todays society, JESUS were to return to earth, I fear that absolute proof would be necessary. There have been too many individuals claiming to be JESUS. There will be those that would not believe in HIS return regardless of proof....they would think charlatan, heretic. Still others, would find it difficult, even with earth shaking proof.
Many have claimed to be the savior of the second coming, meaning their is alot of fake Jesus clones running around. If Jesus ran for American election to be president , he would not get voted in, than what?
On the other hand,
Jesus died at age 33, that would coincide with the end of the earth in 2013 , if he was reborn in 1980, two thing could happen
1. The earth opens up to the gates of hell, and demon start ripping us apart, at that moment I will repent with all my heart
2. Jews go to heaven and the rest go to hell, just remember one thing, God loves you.
3. The whole religious thing is a scam to control the masses by the few rich
Did you take me seriously when I said I am the Christ?
In the same way you would treat Jesus.
The one who strive after proof, will miss the christ because his striving is the proof of his unbelief, faithlessness.
The Christ can do miracles by himself unto himself, and these are not "miracles" to him but merely the way of Life.
When doing miracles for others, it requires the Faith of the ones needing the miracle, and if they first require proof, it proves that they do not have the necessary Faith which would allow that thing to happen, whether it be healing raising the dead, or multiplying food.
You see the only proof of Christ a man need is himself, and that is his Faith. Not the blind faith of religion that florished upon reputations of men.
These types were with Jesus saw the miracles and were the recipient of the same, but they never knew who he was and followed for the fleshly benefits of doing so.
But the Faith that comes from Kowledge....The knowing of the exact nature of ones self, this world and God.
This Man will not merely recognise the Christ in Jesus but also Himself....the he beging to see the Unity of God the world and himself.
The rich have tooled Religion, for example: the predominate christian North America per ca-pita leave the largest foot print on the face of the earth and spend 20 time more money on the Oil Wars than on research of all the energy we need, that is right underneath our feet.
Then after the average person puts in 40 years working service to mankind , then those 90% People wind up dead or dead broke. If that is the Christian way of living with Nature, then I'll keep my circle of nice guys relationship while religion can keep their rakes of fight clubs,and rule number one: don't talk about the fight club
I never said it was the Christian way.
Many people think it is but the Bible disagrees, as do I.
Many of those people aren't going to Heaven, no matter what they think.
Oh Chris. Are you determining who gets into heaven now?
The line up for hell keeps getting longer as Religious groups breeders over populate the earth. There has to be another planet with greater intelligence than earth or God is not kind and hell is great.
If we treat our animals, pets or farm, with the same "kindness" God treats His creations we will go to jail for it. The claim is made for forgiveness, but we are not allowed to witness forgiven people going to heaven; only the cruelty of starvation and sickness permitted among our fellow "creations".
I would hope you would know me a bit better than that by now.
The Bible makes clear that many, even most, people who think they have a clear shot are in for a rude awakening. It also makes it clear that we humans are not to judge who will make it in or not. That means that even though we don't know which individuals are getting in, we know that many individuals are not.
You may agree or disagree, but the Bible is my source and my standard. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, and if we don't learn it now (in the "predominate christian North America") we will learn it after we die.
So, do you believe YOU are getting into heaven? Are you ready to be disappointed if you don't? And what about those you've "shown the light" to? If they don't make it either will you take any blame for their eternity in hell? "Gee, my bad, friends, but I meant well! You guys aren't angry just because I led you astray are you?"
Hi, Randy! Nice to see you again!
Would hope that you would know me better than that by now. I know you don't read all my stuff, but just from our own conversations I would like to think I was a little more honest with you than for you to think I'm smugly waiting for Heaven to open up for me!
Only when it suits your agenda. Surely, when others bring forth that which you don't accept as standard, your claim to source falls flat.
I met Jesus once - he visited the Salvation Army church my wife's grandmother was pastor of, begging food. White sheet as a robe, but no beard. Unfortunately, we didn't believe him much. That would be a common reaction, I'm afraid.
On the other hand, millions have believed in Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Pat Robertson and the Pope as men of God, preaching His word, to the point that they have given (and still give today) their possessions and sometimes their very lives.
So yes, there will always be the gullible who will believe anything. There is always some preacher doing miracles, healing the blind and sick, and the believers that swallow that sort of stuff. People want to believe and will do so whatever evidence to the contrary is shown. Were David Blain to suddenly begin preaching a gospel I'm sure he would have followers, too - his "magic" is quite impressive and he's quite a showman.
There is no proven historical record of Jr. ever having existed. This despite the known historical records from the time being almost tainted by religious leaders attempting to verify his being. They were caught at it, fortunately for those of us who prefer truth over the words of ignorant religious zealots.
Okay, that's the first time I've heard that, at least phrased that way. I'm going to need some verification on that!
The works of Josephus, as well as other contemporary historians, were edited to try and include Jesus in them as the mere lack of mention concerning him was an embarrassment to his followers much later on. You do know, of course, there was no record of his existence for at least 30 years after his supposed death, right?
Three decades is a long time for such short lived folks, with almost anything capable of being said also being almost unprovable 30 years later. Very convenient to those wishing to create myths about religious figures.
Besides, unless there was someone capable of using shorthand to write down the words of Jesus as he spoke them, no one really knows what he supposedly said, or even if he ever existed at all. Most of his quotes were made up literally hundreds of years later. Most believers have no idea about this and think Jesus wrote the bible himself.
Okay, nice try but...
The Josephus writing (and here we are talking about one sentence, not an entire body of work!) is well understood by conservative Christians that the specific Jesus reference was probably not made by Josephus because it doesn't fit in with the rest of his writing or general outlook.
You assume that not just the average lifespan was 40 years but that almost everybody was dead by 40. There are just too many cases of people who lived to 60, 70 or 80 for that to be true. In fact, for forty to be the average that means that there would have to be as many people who lived longer as people who didn't live that long! Yes, life was dangerous and many people died early, but not that many!
I've never met a single believer who thinks that Jesus wrote the Bible. Okay, a couple of five year olds, but nobody over that age. Good joke! Bad stab at truth.
Shorthand was developed by a Roman slave sometime in the First Century BC, although Greek systems were known before that. But most cultures put a high premium on the ability of people to remember things for long periods of time. So the probability that people would remember things He said or did for twenty or thirty years, especially if you saw things like healing of lepers and giving sight to the blind, which would not only be memorable in and of themselves but also carry great cultural and religious significance to you, would be pretty high.
First Century Jews were soooo not 21st Century Americans!
I would say no to the initial question because people don't pay much attention to baby babbling. Maybe after he got a little older.
It can't be said considering the world as we know it would be entirely different. We'd probably be farther as a race by this time if he wasn't born until now
most christians dont know that historic jesus doesnot have contemporary source...
Apparently. Why would they not investigate this for themselves and why would they claim that there is without verifying it?
@mark unfortunately most believe bible=history...
I would just use the word false statement instead of liar, if they are really wrong and they don't care, then I call it BS
Liar is a strong word, Chris dose not lie all the time, only sometimes like on this thread when too many people disagree with him and in desperation he makes false statements.
its surprising that most christian dont know that authors of gospel never met jesus in person...Mark's gospel is considered to be oldest among gospel and no one even know who this mark was...some believe he was disciple of peter and wrote what peter told him about jesus...Modern scholars believe mark was christian living in syria...Bible was standardized much later...It was done around 300 yrs after death of jesus...Super hero christ we have in bible is invention of authors of bible...and word of god as claimed by christians is collections of words chosen by early church...
I know. It is almost as though they want to believe so bad, they dare not look at the provenance.
This one has been arguing that there is lots of evidence for Jesus - despite the fact that there is none.
Now he is professing surprise that people take things on face value and expressing how unreasonable it is that the gospels were written by people who had never met Jesus.
It is pretty certain that the gospel writers never met Jesus. This is widely accepted in theological and historical circles.
Well - I know you are very, very brave hidden behind a fake user name and image, but if you are going to call me a liar - at least back it up with something.
Who is this Stan person?
Daniel Buchanan Mr Knowles.. And that's me. If I was to use a fake image, it would be someone pretty, not ugly like myself. [I'm sure you'll disgagree]
Dyslexia kicking in or?
Back it up?
Your claim is spread by rumor and myth, like you claim the Bible to be ya know?
Google your second to last sentence and see how many nuerons have asked that question after being parroted some heresay like your post... And then the 'historical circle' answers you claim.
Widely accepted? Yeah, I'll give you that.
By intelligent people who 'actually' did the homework.. Pleaseee lol
Matthew and John are two followers [disciples]. James and Jude are His brothers. Peter was a disciple as well.
Mark was taught by Peter, and Luke was a physician who was 'reporting' on it witness testimony style.
Stan.. Ohhh, I get it. You have code names now..
Crikey. You think the Gospels were actually written by the disciples? OK then.
Not sure what to say to that other than "Crikey!" It seems your ignorance knows very little boundaries.
Very, very brave you are. Wow! I am really impressed at a warrior for Christ such as yourself taking the time out of a busy schedule to be so condescending to me. Makes me want to rush out and become a Warrior for Christ myself. *Insert Sarcasm Smiley here*
It's widely accepted in the scholarly historical society.
You just made that up. Oh wait - I thought lying was a sin and your Invisible Super Daddy burned you for that. N'est pa?
@mark we wont see any religion exist without myths,fables and lies ...
No, I didn't..
Boy you hate the truth..
You claim none met Him.
I state two, the truth. And now I made all that up?
You're killing me ol' fella.
You can keep that, Aramaic is more my style.
And no, it isn't true.
That wasn't lying I got burned for..
It was being harsh.
Funny how things change and memory slips int it?
I hate the truth? How so? - you are the one claiming that all theologians and historians and scientists are wrong and you have the truth.
So you are double burning then? For lying and being harsh? Maybe you could start another thread apologizing and then go back to being harsh again and then apologize and then - Oh wait..........
Hmmm! North Carolina or some other such place? Perhaps baptist or even Methodist. Clearly indoctrinated at an early age. Not much structured education and apprently not interested in understanding science or factual history. Excellent fundamentalist material!
It really is not at all, there is much debate about who wrote the gospels and when, John is estimated to have written about 100 AD for example, many parts of the gospels indicate that A) the writers were not the apostles and B) ti had been some time since the writing ie.
In reality, none of the evangelists identifies himself as a character in the gospel story. As one glaring example of this detachment, it is claimed that Matthew was recording events he himself had witnessed, but the gospel attributed to him begins before he had been called by Jesus and speaks of Matthew in the third person….
Furthermore, there are places in the New Testament that imply the books were written long after the purported events, such as when the text reads, "In the days of John the Baptist," which indicates that the writer is set far ahead in time and is looking back. As another example, regarding Jesus's body being stolen, Matthew's gospel claims that "this story has been spread among the Jews to this day." The phrase "to this day" indicates that the writer is talking about a significant length of time, not shortly after the resurrection as some have attempted to place the composition and emergence of this gospel. In fact, we do not have any mention in the historical record of the story of Christ's body being stolen having been spread among the Jews until the second century. It is possible that this particular verse was not added until that time, which means that it is not original to the gospel and that Matthew certainly is not its author. Also, Luke's gospel discusses an apparent myriad of preceding gospels written "by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…"
I am not saying either way just that there is no consensus at all that the gospels were written by the apostles or about when they were written.
@josak u r picking and choosing...BIBLE was written by eye witnesses , who where pretty much part of jesus's inner circle..PERIOD...we dont need proof since bible itself is proof...Bible is word of god , because Bible says so...
Jesus loves me
This i know
Cuz the bible
Tells me so....
I have a history degree and I have never heard anything such as this.
Which scholarly historical society widely accepts that the gospels were written by the disciples???
Show me any ancient text's proof of author identity.
The evidence shows no discrepancies.
There are other documents known to be falsified. The ones kept in the Bible are not those.
That is the whole point. You can't prove anything by scientific evidence regarding the documents to non-debatable standards.
People that have no bias state genuinely that there is no reason to doubt the Bible's textual basis. Anyone can be silly in their expectations and scrutiny of the text. Their intense assessment applied to every text [collections of copies that is] would render every one of them useless.
This, by those who have no bias, is well known.
Doubt can be applied to anything without any effort.
Then why don't you doubt the bible? Oh that's right!, you're indoctrinated and therefor have forfeited that ability.
It's not necessarily indoctrination. Logic dictates that in a debate, the same logic can be applied both ways (in which case your doubt could just as easily be a case of indoctrination and your vituperation seen as a justification mechanism.)
I maintain that God does reveal Himself and sometimes more personally than others. I've shared my own testimony, so I stand by it.
No he didn't.
Point it out, to accompany the accusation.
Why do you bother with him? I don't even read his posts anymore. His sole reason for being here is to stir up trouble.
Do you not understand the concept of logic and that of personal testimony and that neither are compatible when it comes to claiming gods have revealed themselves? Duh.
[You people must have a special privilage to get reply options I don't. There wasn't an option under me, nor is there under you. Happens often.]
I know, I know. lol
I usually don't and just went against what I told him a week or so ago. Being pre-occupied doesn't help my 300 mph thoughts, and that one went before better judgement prevented it. (was going to delete it but figured screw it, it's out of the main... )
[That and thinking about cookies isn't helping my focus.. ugh]
I don't deny that this might be difficult, but you seem to think that 'scholarly historical society widely accepts that the gospels were written by the disciples'.
I would still like to know which 'scholarly historical society widely accepts' this, please?
I was shooting funny darts at Mark which you are contexting elsewhere.
If I were speaking to you the structure would contain a different mode of perception.
And the points I were making were in regard to his claims, not me specifically stating the entire world of scholars holds something as true.
Take it easy there lawyer.. lol
Not only this, but my point was [which I know Mark got, because I was talking in "talk to Mark" format because I was talking to Mark.. lol] is that widely accepted doesn't mean jack.
People widely accepted lots of things - like adolf hitler killing jews became "widely" accepted. [boy was that a brilliant idea widely accepted]
The world itself can testify that stupidity abounds in the masses and is no quality or wise indicator for truth.
Yes, there are lots of problems everywhere around the world like poverty and wars. Times are tough and people tend to find consolations - messianic guidance during these times.
What do you think would happen if you said you were Jesus, wielding a sword and spouting crazy gibberish?
You'd probably be put away or worse, killed.
What happened to Koresh and others like him?
Think about how that looks this day and age, how is any of it rational?
I believe if Jesus was born today, he would be shocked at the idea that Christians refer to him to the son of God. He would be in disbelief to hear all the supposed quotes he was supposed to say in the Bible (i.e. When Gen Sherman, years after the Civil War, was asked about his quote about "War is Hell", he said he doesn’t remember saying anything like that. Nobody but the media, not the owners or builders, claimed the Titanic was unsinkable. The unsinkable notion really took off after it sank). Born to a virgin?! He’s fall over laughing. Three wise guys gave him gifts? “When did this happen?” He’d ask. A modern Jesus would quickly find out that there's better ways to treat people than faith healing. He wouldn't recognize the images of himself displayed in churches and other places since he wouldn't resemble any of them (the images we know of Jesus are severely Europeanized - Jesus was Middle Eastern). I think Christians would be very disappointed.
You're right that Jesus as a Semitic Jew (and one who was not supposed to be especially handsome) wouldn't look a thing like most of the pictures of Him.
As for the rest of it, He would definitely say yes, because they had to happen to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies.
As far as handsome goes, (personally, just sayin) I can't believe for a second the Son of God was anything but perfect.. which is the equivalent of attractive.
Just my take.
Isaiah 53:2, which I believe is quoted in the NT, makes clear that Jesus didn't fit anyone's ideal of physical perfection, whether the Jews of 1st Century AD or the Americans of 21st Century AD.
What drew people to Him was His spirit, not his dashing or rugged good looks.
Well I wouldn't say His looks brought people even if I knew He was attractive.
And I don't see any of this as discussion to make debate.. This is solely my opinion.
King James Version (KJV)
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
I just don't see how fully God in bodily form can be ugly.. Save that beauty is in the eye of the beholder perhaps.. [not that every beholder is correct pertaining to God]
Could it be a visage of Zeus? He often took the form of a twisted beggar or that of an old man.
I see your point but in a way, that's falling into the very trap that we get accused of so often. If beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder then that picture that was in so many homes when I was growing up of the "European Jesus" becomes a standard of beauty. Even that long hair, which it's extremely unlikely the real Jesus would have had but no Christian (or other) movie or painting dares to contradict because it's so ingrained in our consciousness, that's from an idea of physical beauty and male virility. It's doubtful that He is ugly, but it is more than likely that physically, He would have been considered run-of-the-mill, even somewhat plain. And that would be important because a handsome or even beautiful leader (like David, for instance) would have had some gushy stuff written about how handsome he was, which would inevitably detract from the real point.
I agree about the hair, and I actually believe His hair wasn't long like the images you're talking about. [I won't get into why here, it would get rather lengthy.]
I simply took Isaiah to be saying He won't be drawing the masses through His outward beauty or glory, like you mentioned.
I can agree about stuff off-point being wrote in that case too.
Chris Neal wrote:
" ... Even that long hair, which it's extremely unlikely the real Jesus would have had but no Christian".
Was he nor called a Nazarine? In keeping in the faith of a Nazarine wh would not have cut his hair or drand strong drink.
I think he had long hair. Though he wasn't any thing special to look at (comely)
by tngolfplayer 4 years ago
UFO's-Yes or No?I have seen two "UFO's" in my life, neither were explainable, and both had fighter jets in the area shortly after the sighting. I have done lots of amateur astrophotography over the years and am pretty knowledgeable about the stars and so on. I am up in the air...
by pisean282311 9 years ago
Jesus seems to be good moral teacher who wanted to uplift humanity but do you think he died because of fallacy?
by Claire Evans 9 years ago
If somebody truly believed that Santa was God, I would not even bother addressing that person because the insane CANNOT be reasoned with.
by Rainbow Pride 11 years ago
Hello, I'm Rainbow Pride. I'm new here, although some of you may have seen me exploring the forums a bit today.My goal here is to gain support for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders by writing about them.My first project will be about LGBT Stereotypes. So I'd like to ask the community here...
by nightwork4 10 years ago
Why do so many people want myths to be real?between god, ghosts, satan and other such myths, it seems that some people have a need for these things to be real, any ideas as to why?
by Pratonix 10 years ago
There are a lot of people who call themselves Christians, but from a simple reading of John chapter 3 we find that the Lord Jesus said emphatically: 'You MUST be born again!' John 3.7.I am a born-again Christian, born again about 20 years ago. I have the assurance that my sins are forgiven; and I...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|