The Bible Thread: Help Fight Redundancy

Jesus was not on the list

"The fact that Jesus is missing from the meticulously-kept Roman list of executions, proves that the crucifixion of Jesus never happened." The fact of the matter is, there is no such list.

The Gospels are Fiction

"The Gospels are fiction, therefore Jesus never existed."
That's really begging the question. We do know that some things in the Gospels are not fiction, like John the Baptist (mentioned in Josephus), Herod and Pontius Pilate. Those are historical figures. The ossuary of the high priest Caiaphas was recently unearthed.

"The lack of independent documentation of Jesus from the 1st Century proves Jesus was fictional"

There is a general lack of documentation on just about everything from 1st Century Palestine. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD (not Satan, CYDONIA), which might have contributed to this lack of documentation.

You can't rule out the fire of 70 AD.

"There are still many people today who make the claim that Jesus never existed, that He was only a mythical character.

Bertrand Russell puts it this way, "I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels" (Why I Am Not a Christian, p. 11, note 8).

However, those who make such an accusation are certainly not historians, but are surprisingly ignorant of the facts.

The New Testament contains twenty-seven separate documents which were written in the first century A.D. These writings contain the story of the life of Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian church from about 4 B.C. until the decade of the A.D. nineties.

The facts were recorded by eyewitnesses, who gave firsthand testimony to what they had seen and hear. "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Live" (1 John 1:1, NASB).

Moreover, the existence of Jesus is recorded by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who was born in A.D. 37, "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.

"He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities, XVIII, III).

Although this passage has been contested because of the reference to Jesus being the Christ and rising from the , the fact of His existence is not in question.

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 112), a Roman historian, writing about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus Christ and the existence of Christians in Rome (Annals, XV, 44), Tacitus, elsewhere in his Histories, refers to Christianity when alluding to the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This has been preserved by Sulpicius Severus (Chronicles 30:6).

There are other references to Jesus or His followers, such as the Roman historian, Seutonius (A.D. 120) in Life of Claudius, 25.4, and Lives of the Caesars, 26.2, and Pliny the younger (A.D. 112) in his Epistles, X. 96.

This testimony, both Christian and non-Christian, is more than sufficient to lay to rest any idea that Jesus, in fact, never existed. In light of the evidence, it is absurd to hold such a view. We know more about the life of Jesus than just about any other figure in the ancient world. His birth, life, and are revealed in much more detail than most ancient figures whose existence is taken for granted by historians.

 

And it was Eusebius who was first to use the Josephus text as evidence of a historical Jesus. He's also known for this quote:



Eusebius is also infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas Plato supposedly got from Moses, he includes the idea:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.

The rest of the article can be found here:

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

 

Aaargh....must....not....read.....stupid arguments.....against Jesus'.....existence.........

No, you're not arrogant at all. Silly us!

 

The case for christ. There's that book again! I guess the bible isn't enough. Luckily with the help of Ender i've read various passages from the book, as well as a nifty rebuttal.

BTW we've read the Josephus passage before. I have a question, if it is ever finally "proved" that the josephus passage is fake, what is left, Besides the Case for Christ? Just curious.

 

The arguments are wrong and stupid because:

If you were a historian, and you heard about some guy who claimed he was the Messiah and you didn't believe him, would you record him down in your writings?

If you thought someone was crazy, would you write about them even though you yourself would think that writing about him would not help history in any way whatsoever?

The thing is, Jesus was an OUTCAST. No one likes an outcast. He was rejected by men.

Jews and Jewish historians didn't believe He was the Messiah, so they didn't write about Him.

Roman historians didn't believe in the Messiah, so they didn't write about Him.

The historians just concluded that He was just another one of THOUSANDS of crazy people runnin' around.

Would a historian write about JUST ONE PERSON they thought was crazy for the sake of history?

.
.
.
.
I think not.


That's all I have to say, and I won't change my thoughts.....and you won't change yours. Continue arguing, but about 70 years from now we'll see who was right. Pascal's principle.

Have a nice life

Fat_Fett

 

::

You mean Pascal's wager?

You don't even know what you are talking about, do you?

 

Ah, whatever. Take it easy, Fatt Fett.

 

no of course he doesnt
i also just started reading jesus and the lost goddess. like the jesus mysteries it should strengthen a christians beliefs if they were true, it is too bad that these people are so caught up with the literalist dogma

 

Fat_Fett wrote:
"...stupid arguments..."

really?! you would really call the opinions and relevent observations of others "stupid arguments"?

well, maybe i am stupid then... if stupid means that i have the capacity to research information, bring up or make valid points, question the supposed "infallible truth" claims that are made by biased "experts" - i could go on, but since i is stupid..

i'm upset that you felt compelled to insult my intelligence - i was truly only trying to provide you with the answer(s) that i thought you were sincerely looking for... i guess that wasn't true - you just wanted to try to rub it in that no one had, as of yet, ever given you proof about the existence of pre-christian resurrection myths, and you really thought that it could not be done - but then, when someone provides you with the information you say it's nothing but a Satanic plot to cause confusion... in my book, that's a cop out...

but, my arguments are stupid...
or, maybe any argument that goes against what you believe to be absolute truth is stupid...

i think i would rather be stupid than to be so certain that i could never learn

edit: oops, i didn't know he had left us...
for posterity's sake i'll leave my comments, above, as they are

 

dont forget plunk, were goin to hell

 

No were not.

The New Testament teaches that if you don't reject the gift, even an unbeliever, will go to heaven and be re-educated by God himself.

 

or if you believ that there is no seperate entity of god, and therefore never sperated from god, god is within you regardless of what you believe

 

woo hoo!
i'm stupid and i'm going to hell!

how'd i get so lucky?!

 

haha

 

Fat_Fett:

The problem with that argument is that, according to the Bible, Jesus was more than one of however many Messiah wanna-bes; the Gospel stories have him accumulating multitudes of followers, performing huge miracles in front of thousands of eyewitnesses, and rising from the dead.

Are you trying to say that none of the era's historians considered any of that noteworthy?

And again, what about Herod's massacre? Why is that not mentioned anywhere else?

 

the jesus myth is a reinterpretation of the genesis myth that is suppossed to have the same allegorical value.

 

i like your line of thinking, sleazo!
God is (in) everything, or there is no God!**

**God=Force=Great Spirit=Goddess=Higher Power=Tao... etc, etc... whatever you call it, or not!

 

i'm stupid and i'm going to hell!

Heaven.

 

waahhh, Wylding... you're confusing me!

 

thanks kerr plunk, its what ive gathered from many sources over the years, just my opinion mind you, but i like it

 

You know, Jesus walked on water, raised the dead, turned water into wine, all things that never happened before ( )
and the historians ignored it? People were coming from far and wide to be healed, and they WERE healed, (right?) thousands of people saw these things. OBVIOUSLY no historian would write about something as life changing as this.

This reminds me of a easter postcard a local church sent to me. "His death shocked the world". I guess that means the world other than the historians, who ignored the miracle man because he was a kook.

I think i just said the same thing Geist said.

 

right other pagan godmen never did those things before, not even my main man dionysus
mmmmm wine

 

Cydonia wrote:
"I think i just said the same thing Geist said."

you expanded upon it

... my main man dionysus
mmmmm wine

*Kerr_Plunk pours out her libation to the "old" Gods*

 

waahhh, Wylding... you're confusing me!

I'm told that I do that...mostly by women, but occasionally I get that comment on the net as well.


There is a logical argument that says that the New Testament teaches everyone will be saved.

 

I think i'll have to revisit that thread. It was a good one. It's interesting to see how one's opinions grow or change over time.