The

"historians believe the Josephus text that mentions Jesus was tampered with"

Ender, care to post some proof on that? In fact, there is little opposition in academic circles (including the Jesus Seminar) that Jesus existed. Show me this serious academic challenge.

As to if that is Josephus writing or not, Blomberg, 1987; Barnett 1986; & R.C. Stone have found it acceptable or found that researchers find it so.

Also, the Encyclopedia Britannica (which is complied by scholars) states that the independant accounts (yes that is plural) of Jesus prove he was real.

Let's see your evidence.

 

Ender:
"Jews then and now did not believe Jesus was the messiah. That's why they supposedly handed him over to the Romans.

Not all Jews. Ever heard of Messianic Jews?
Also, it was predicted that the Jews would reject the Messiah

Psalm 118:22-23:

"The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes."

And the Jews did hand Jesus over to the Romans because He was claiming to be the Messiah, and they didn't believe it. Therefore, they concluded that He was blaspheming, and wanted the Roman government to punish Him because only the Romans had the authority to judge Him.

 

Here's a link Palpazzar to my evidence. Hope you actually read the stuff:

Did a Historical Jesus exist?

Excerpt from the above link:

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus got born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Another good link:

Massive amount of links


Can you backup that Jesus Seminar info? I like to see you back that info up.

Also, you seem to be missing the point. JOSEPHUS wasn't alive when Jesus was alive and walking the planet.

I'm not saying the text doesn't talk about Jesus. I'm saying it was doctored to make it look like Josepheus thought the guy was the MESSIAH!

A radical rabbi named Jesus may have existed. I doubt he was a god though.

Encyclopedia Britannica isn't compiled by scholars, it's compiled by a publishing company. They select the work of specific scholars that go into it.

Now if you wouldn't mind showing me all your evidence Palpazzar. A link would be fine. Showing text other than Josepheus would be good for a change. You'd think such a powerful god such as Jesus would be mentioned more in text from that period.

Dead Sea scrolls make no mention of him and they were written in the time of Jesus.

 

"Dead Sea scrolls make no mention of him and they were written in the time of Jesus.

I'm not quite sure about this... I'm checking it out right now, but I was under the impression that the Dead Sea scrolls were parts of the Old Testament that were hand-copied by the Jews that were in hiding. If they were copied from the Old Testament, why would they have any mention of Jesus?

 

Psalm 118:22-23:

"The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes."


Oh yeah, they nailed it, lol.

It's true, the bible is a Rorschach test.


Got something less vague?

 

The Jesus Seminar is in fact evidence although I totally reject their methods and conclusions. Do a search on them yourself. They are a liberal group which has concluded only 20% of the saying of Jesus in the Bible can be linked to Jesus. They are basically a fringe group that dismisses the sole divinty of Jesus. They aren't on my side, yet I present them anyway for even they believe in Jesus as a historical figure.

Secondly, just because he wasn't alive at the time, proves nothing. However, this is a moot point because you do have better arguments against Joey.

As to other references to Jesus in ancient writings, I can list some for you. I have not read them for myself I confess, but if you REALLY want to research the topic for yourself rather than just try shooting it down, I will provide them for you.

 

Got something less vague?

Isaiah 53:3-5 (NIV)

"He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hid their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."


All bold face type are prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus, including the fact that He would be rejected by the Jews.

 

Don't forget the predictions of his birthplace, the year he would be born, and how he would die including the spear wound.

 

Wonder why it doesn't mention Jesus by name?

That scripture would be handy if the actual son of god did show up. You still have to prove to me that he actually existed and was a god.

You think the authors of the NT didn't take that passage into account when they were creating their myth?

Look, Jesus is just like Horus the Egyptian god!!

The Egyptian mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to Jesus. [Leedom, Massey] For some examples:

Horus and the Father as one
Horus, the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.
Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Hours as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)



Palpazzar, there is no contemporary evidence for a Jesus. There is only hearsay.

Did you even read that first link I gave you?

 

Ender: In the link above ("Did a Historical Jesus exist?"), there are a few erros that I thought I'd point out.

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.


Acts 9:5 "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he replied."


John: "Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts."

In the gospel of John, John refers to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

Peter: "Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. "

I Peter 5:12 (NIV)

"With the help of Silas (Greek - Silvanus), whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you..."

Silvanus helped write it. As it says clearly in this verse.

 

Ok Ender, this looks like it will get techincal.

The historical method for researching the existance of things and people of the ancient world DOES NOT require writing at the very moment that something happens. As you may recall, Heradotus is the basis of much of our accepted knowledge of the ancient world. Yet much of what he wrote was gone before he ever recorded it.

In the case of Jesus, we have a reference by name that occurs within 80 years of Christ's life. That is quite suffiencent to be considered contemporary. Tactius mentions Christ by name. This was before Christianity had become a force in the Roman Empire. Also, Tactius is not biased toward the Christians. So there is not Biblical, non-Jewish writings of Chirst that are indeed contemporary with Christ.

 

ok... editing doesn't work. so i'll just make a new post.

as to the Egyptian thing... you have to realize that the Egyptian religion underwent some MAJOR changes... from the Cult of Osiris to the traditional belief in Ra, as well as a mixture of the two at one point in time. Not exactly a reliable religion.

And no, they didn't mention Jesus by name. The only prophecy in the Old Testament that mentions a name for the Messiah is found in Isaiah 9:6 - "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

 

LOL, you think Egyptian cults aren't reliable?

You think Christianity is untouched?

Have you heard of the Council of Nicia?

That was when the Church took many chapters out of the bible such as the Gospels of Thomas.


There's no point in continuing this debate as you have yet to provide contemporary evidence for this god.

There is contemporary evidence for Apollonius of Tyana. Coins exist that have his name and face on it from the same time he is said to have walked the earth.

Edit: Strange thing is Jesus looks a lot like Apollonius.


And Mithras.

 

Great, now that Ender's gone, let's get back to discussing what this thread is actually about - whether or not there is a God.

(no disrespect meant, Ender)

I'm interested in discussing the sense of the 'numinous' as it's called in theology. This is essentially the heart of the religious experience, and common to all religions. For those who do believe in God, what were the circumstances of your first, or most meaningful, experience of God?

 

I'm sorry, but it is just complete ignorance to actually think that there was never a "Jesus", even if He really wasn't who He claimed to be.

That's just being outright naive.

 

Uh, I'll try and take that as no disrespect intended.


Edit: Correct my ignorance then TFU. Show me some contemporary evidence for the guy.

Plato talked about Hercules like he existed.

Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have mention of Jesus in Joesphus' Antiquities, so also does Joesphus mentions Hercules in Antiquities (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.

Why don't you guys believe in Hercules?

 

Sorry man, I'm not trying to disrespect, but even most atheists admit that at one point there was a man named Jesus Christ. Whether or not He was who He claimed to be is the debatable part.

 

*clears throat

Um, guys, what does whether or not Jesus existed have to do with whether or not there is a God ?

Christians are not the majority of theists.

BTW TFU, I don't think it's naive to say there was no Jesus. Maybe they just think there's not enough proof. And maybe there isn't. Anyway . . . yes, about God . .

 

To answer Kitt:

For me, I had no belief in anything other than what I could see. I didn't know it, but I was an atheist. I had almost never gone to church even though I was living in the Bible Belt.

A karate teacher of mine invited to me his church. I told him yes mainly because I didn't want to tell this man I respected "no". The next morning, I decided I needed to go because I had said I would.

Going was not like I had expected. The people were great. There was no pressure at all. Even from the first minute, I was treated as one of the family. So I decided to go back.

After being there a while, I started looking into what they were saying. I had dismissed God without even giving him a chance. I decided to at least consider the possiblity. After some deep soul searching and looking at things from both perspectives, I realized that I had been foolish.

I believe from then on. But sadly, I didn't practice as I believed. During that time, I had a lot of college and once again looked very critically at things.

And to make a long story short, realized I was an even bigger fool at that point than when I had not believed. I felt how wrong I was in my life.

And one night, a man named Tim Cook was preaching. It was basically what I was going through. Until that night, I had never had a close experince with God. But when the invitation opened, I literally could not have stayed sitting. I was drawn up by something way beyond me to finally became what I had said I believed.

Being in the field of psychology, I know much about the mind and how it plays tricks on you. If it that feeling had come to someone else I might have questioned it. And if I have to be crazy, then let it be for God.

 

I am irritated by people who think believing in God is foolish because it can't be proven. It's that unprovability that necessitates faith.

I am also irritated by God-believing people who judge those that lack faith.

 

I don't consider people of faith stupid or foolish.

I do get angry at them sometimes.


Some of the scientists I admire believe in a personal god. A lot of my friends and family believe in a god. My grandfather was a devout Catholic who never forced his beliefs upon me.

He was also one of the most intelligent people in our family. Could speak six languages fluently. Was trained to be an architect but during WW2 he was an airplane mechanic and repaired and flew Hurricanes and Mosquitos.

He wasn't a fighter pilot. Mechanics were expected to go up in the planes to test out the work they did on them.

He always encouraged me to question everything.

I'll let this thread get back on topic now.


"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

-Stephen F. Roberts

 

Alright... just a quick (off topic, yes I know) response to Ender's post above, which says: You think Christianity is untouched?

Have you heard of the Council of Nicia?

That was when the Church took many chapters out of the bible such as the Gospels of Thomas.

yes... but we never changed gods And the Council of Nicia put together the Bible in the first place. The Gospel of Thomas was never in the Bible, which was completely compiled around AD 100.


And as to providing evidence for God's existence... I don't think there is any hard, scientific evidence, which is the only thing you'd accept anyway. But the thread is "Is there a God? Discuss," not "Is there a God? Prove it."

 

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

-Stephen F. Roberts

Believing in God does not mean you dismiss all other gods. I believe in God. Period. Whatever name you want to give it, however you want to describe it, or however forms you think it comes in is fine by me. No two people look at God in exactly the same way, even in the same religion.

Kind of similar to how all my teachers used to describe me differently on my school reports. Same person, different opinions.

There's a famous parable which goes something like this:

Six blind men came across an elephant. They each felt different parts of the animal, and got into a fierce debate about the nature of an elephant. The man who felt the trunk said an elephant was like a snake which rested in the air. The man who felt the leg said it was like the trunk of a tree. The man who felt the body said it was like a wall. (etc you get the idea).

The moral? If only the blind men had combined their knowledge, they could have built the most accurate picture of the true nature of an elephant.

I may debate about the nature of God with someone, but it is false to conclude that I 'disbelieve' in 'their' God.

 

I would say yes because when you look at the solar system no other planet could possibly sustain human life. If earth was a little closer to the sun we would burn and a little further away and we would freeze. Also, our bodies are far too complex to be some accident or fluke. Or very minds prove that there's something behind all of this. Animals run on instinct:eat drink sleep mate live. But humans appear to be a little above basic instinct. Humans appear to live by their feelings, their dreams and hopes, they even know when they do wrong. I think that is quite a bit of proof right there. But of course I'm sure someone will find a way to counter quite a bit of this...

 

Blue>> Your explantion for the complexity of life, especially human life is a god? Well I have evidence to show that there are other more reasonable explanations, such as 3.5 billion yearse of evolutionary pressures, cahnce mutations and specialization. Neither of us can proove without doubt either of our theories, at least not now.
Given time and research there will eventually be enough evidence to overwhelmingly support one theory or the other, that is the nature of science.


"Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature. "

Carl Sagan



Oh, and whoever Christians are not the majority of theists, I think you're wrong. I'm pretty sure aroun 1.8 billion people are christians, I don't think there is a larger religious group.

Compared to that around 1 to 1.5 billion are atheists.