Off Topic Messages

Fri May 05, 2006 7:20 pm

OBE not Knighthood.my bad but just replace Kinighthood with OBE in my post. :lol:

Fri May 05, 2006 7:28 pm

ColinB wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:Colin -
Somehow 'Sir Ringo' just doesn't work for me.


'Sir Paul' sticks in my craw.


Likewise with "Sir Mick" and "Sir Keith."

How un-rock-'n'roll.
Image

On the other hand, it's kind of proof that rock was legit.


How long will the British justify these trappings of royalty?
Image
Does it all still work for you all? Maybe it's a national pride thing?
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Fri May 05, 2006 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fri May 05, 2006 10:33 pm

It's a way to keep the masses under control and keep the whole class thing going keep the peasants in their place.

Fri May 05, 2006 11:35 pm

Keith Richards fell out of a tree recently and was hospitalized

what a maroon.

On topic: Elvis Presley is SUPER-FAMOUS and people on other planets listen to hsi music which of course ripples across the universe in soundwaves.

Fri May 05, 2006 11:44 pm

Steve, I totally missed that! It's going to be edited out right now! :oops:

Sat May 06, 2006 12:54 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:
Eddie wrote:If you are a heathen non believer like me, then Elvis wins the fame game by default of having existed.


Even among non-believers, it's a probably a scant minority of historians who feel the historical Jesus didn't exist at all.

Them..and Eddie in Scotland. :lol:

Image


It's true to say that there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus really existed though.

Sat May 06, 2006 1:05 am

ColinB wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:Colin -
Somehow 'Sir Ringo' just doesn't work for me.


'Sir Paul' sticks in my craw.



Does not seem to fit like Sir Cliff, eh, Colin :D

Sat May 06, 2006 5:59 am

TJ wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:
Eddie wrote:If you are a heathen non believer like me, then Elvis wins the fame game by default of having existed.


Even among non-believers, it's a probably a scant minority of historians who feel the historical Jesus didn't exist at all.

Them..and Eddie in Scotland. :lol:

Image


It's true to say that there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus really existed though.


That's incorrect T.J. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his writings. One of the passages is controversal, but it is generally held by many, if not most scholars to be basically authentic with some Christian interpolation. Even if you disallow the proposed interpolation your left with basic information about Jesus that agrees with the Gospels. The other passage, concerning the death of James the brother of Jesus, is accepted by the vast majority of scholars and historians. There are also some references to Jesus in Jewish rabbinical writings.

Sat May 06, 2006 6:47 am

Pete Dube wrote:
TJ wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:
Eddie wrote:If you are a heathen non believer like me, then Elvis wins the fame game by default of having existed.


Even among non-believers, it's a probably a scant minority of historians who feel the historical Jesus didn't exist at all.

Them..and Eddie in Scotland. :lol:

Image


It's true to say that there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus really existed though.


That's incorrect T.J. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his writings. One of the passages is controversal, but it is generally held by many, if not most scholars to be basically authentic with some Christian interpolation. Even if you disallow the proposed interpolation your left with basic information about Jesus that agrees with the Gospels. The other passage, concerning the death of James the brother of Jesus, is accepted by the vast majority of scholars and historians. There are also some references to Jesus in Jewish rabbinical writings.


I thought someone might bring up Josephus. Actually, if I'm honest, I thought it would be you Pete :wink: Both passages are considered controversial and particularly the former which has been denounced by many as a complete fabrication. There are good reasons to believe that these were later additions by Christians, not least that they were not referenced by early Christians at all. It wasn't until the early fourth century that a version of the text with these passages was produced. In fact, 100 yrs before that, Origen (a well respected scholar of the early church) said that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ because he didn't believe in any Jewish Messiah figure. I guess Origen must have skipped the Jesus as Messiah passage then? Or could it simply be that the passage hadn't been fabricated yet?

Josephus does in fact give his interpretation of the Messiah prophecy in 'Jewish War' and it has nothing to do with Jesus. He believed that the Jews had misinterpreted the prophecy and it had actually been fulfilled by Roman Emperor Vespasian, who was appointed Emperor in Judea.

Sat May 06, 2006 12:55 pm

TJ wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
TJ wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:
Eddie wrote:If you are a heathen non believer like me, then Elvis wins the fame game by default of having existed.


Even among non-believers, it's a probably a scant minority of historians who feel the historical Jesus didn't exist at all.

Them..and Eddie in Scotland. :lol:

Image


It's true to say that there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus really existed though.


That's incorrect T.J. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his writings. One of the passages is controversal, but it is generally held by many, if not most scholars to be basically authentic with some Christian interpolation. Even if you disallow the proposed interpolation your left with basic information about Jesus that agrees with the Gospels. The other passage, concerning the death of James the brother of Jesus, is accepted by the vast majority of scholars and historians. There are also some references to Jesus in Jewish rabbinical writings.


I thought someone might bring up Josephus. Actually, if I'm honest, I thought it would be you Pete :wink: Both passages are considered controversial and particularly the former which has been denounced by many as a complete fabrication. There are good reasons to believe that these were later additions by Christians, not least that they were not referenced by early Christians at all. It wasn't until the early fourth century that a version of the text with these passages was produced. In fact, 100 yrs before that, Origen (a well respected scholar of the early church) said that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ because he didn't believe in any Jewish Messiah figure. I guess Origen must have skipped the Jesus as Messiah passage then? Or could it simply be that the passage hadn't been fabricated yet?

Josephus does in fact give his interpretation of the Messiah prophecy in 'Jewish War' and it has nothing to do with Jesus. He believed that the Jews had misinterpreted the prophecy and it had actually been fulfilled by Roman Emperor Vespasian, who was appointed Emperor in Judea.


Josephus is hardly the only person contemporaneous with Jesus to mention Him.

Just for you, TJ and Eddie....... :D







Do any records exist to document the claim that Jesus Christ “intervened in the course of events” known as world history? Indeed they do.

HOSTILE TESTIMONY

Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as “hostile” sources—writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias.

In his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders stated: “Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world” (1993, p. 49, parenthetical comment in orig.). It is now to this “small elite class of the Roman Empire” that we turn our attention for documentation of Christ’s existence.

Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) should be among the first of several hostile witnesses called to the stand. He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan (see Tacitus, 1952, p. 7). His famous work, Annals, was a history of Rome written in approximately A.D. 115. In the Annals he told of the Great Fire of Rome, which occurred in A.D. 64. Nero, the Roman emperor in office at the time, was suspected by many of having ordered the city set on fire. Tacitus wrote:


"Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome" (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.).

Tacitus hated both Christians and their namesake, Christ. He therefore had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a “deadly superstition.” He did, however, have something to say about it. His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!

Additional hostile testimony originated from Suetonius, who wrote around A.D. 120. Robert Graves, as translator of Suetonius’ work, The Twelve Caesars, declared:


Suetonius was fortunate in having ready access to the Imperial and Senatorial archives and to a great body of contemporary memoirs and public documents, and in having himself lived nearly thirty years under the Caesars. Much of his information about Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero comes from eye-witnesses of the events described (Suetonius, 1957, p. 7).
The testimony of Suetonius is a reliable piece of historical evidence. Twice in his history, Suetonius specifically mentioned Christ or His followers. He wrote, for example:

“Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius—KB] expelled them from the city” (Claudius, 25:4; note that in Acts 18:2 Luke mentioned this expulsion by Claudius).
Sanders noted that Chrestus is a misspelling of Christos, “the Greek word that translates the Hebrew ‘Messiah’” (1993, pp. 49-50). Suetonius further commented: “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief” (Nero, 16:2).
Again, it is evident that Suetonius and the Roman government had feelings of hatred toward Christ and His alleged mischievous band of rebels. It is equally evident that Suetonius (and, in fact, most of Rome) recognized that Christ was the noteworthy founder of a historically significant new religion.

Along with Tacitus and Suetonius, Pliny the Younger must be allowed to take a seat among hostile Roman witnesses. In approximately A.D. 110-111, Pliny was sent by the Roman emperor Trajan to govern the affairs of the region of Bithynia. From this region, Pliny corresponded with the emperor concerning a problem he viewed as quite serious.

He wrote: “I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know the customary penalties or investigations and what limits are observed”
(as quoted in Wilken, 1990, p. 4). He then went on to state:


"This is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist, I sentence them to death" (as quoted in Wilken, p. 4).
Pliny used the term “Christian” or “Christians” seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted term that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny also used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the originator of the “sect.” It is undeniably the case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied in such a way as to draw the attention of the emperor and his magistrates by the time of Pliny’s letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as an actual, historical person.

Celsus, a second-century pagan philosopher, produced a vehement attack upon Christianity by the title of True Discourse (c. A.D. 178). In that document, Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. As he matured, Jesus began to call himself God—an action, said Celsus, which caused his Jewish brethren to kill him. Yet as denigrating as his attack was, Celsus never went so far as to suggest that Christ did not exist.
Some have attempted to negate the testimony of these hostile Roman witnesses to Christ’s historicity by suggesting that the “Roman sources that mention him are all dependent on Christian reports” (Sanders, 1993, p. 49). For example, in his book, The Earliest Records of Jesus, Francis Beare lamented:


Everything that has been recorded of the Jesus of history was recorded for us by men to whom he was Christ the Lord; and we cannot expunge their faith from the records without making the records themselves virtually worthless. There is no Jesus known to history except him who is depicted by his followers as the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour to the World (1962, p. 19).
Such a suggestion is as outlandish as it is outrageous. Not only is there no evidence to support such a claim, but all of the available evidence militates against it. Furthermore, it is an untenable position to suggest that such upper class Roman historians would submit for inclusion in the official annals of Roman history (to be preserved for posterity) facts that were related to them by a notorious tribe of “mischievous,” “depraved,” “superstitious” misfits.

Even a casual reader who glances over the testimony of the hostile Roman witnesses who bore testimony to the historicity of Christ will be struck by the fact that these ancient men depicted Christ as neither the Son of God nor the Savior of the world. They verbally stripped Him of His Sonship, denied His glory, and belittled His magnificence. They described Him to their contemporaries, and for posterity, as a mere man. Yet even though they were wide of the mark in regard to the truth of Who He was, through their caustic diatribes they nevertheless documented that He was. And for that we are indebted to them.

TESTIMONY OF JESUS AMONG THE JEWS

Even though much of the hostile testimony regarding the existence of Jesus originated from witnesses within the Roman Empire, such testimony is not the only kind of hostile historical evidence available. Anyone familiar with Jewish history will recognize immediately the Mishnah and the Talmud. The Mishnah was a book of Jewish law traditions codified by Rabbi Judah around the year A.D. 200 and known to the Jews as the “whole code of religious jurisprudence” (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). Jewish rabbis studied the Mishnah and even wrote a body of commentary based upon it known as the Gemares. The Mishnah and Gemares are known collectively as the Talmud (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). The complete Talmud surfaced around A.D. 300. If a person as influential as Jesus had existed in the land of Palestine during the first century, surely the rabbis would have had something to say about him. Undoubtedly, a man who supposedly confronted the most astute religious leaders of His day—and won—would be named among the opinions of those who shared His rabbinical title. As Bruce declared:


According to the earlier Rabbis whose opinions are recorded in these writings, Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel, who practised magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said that he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it. He was hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people. His disciples, of whom five are named, healed the sick in his name (1953, p. 102).
First-century Judaism, in large part, refused to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of the God. Yet it did not refuse to accept Him as a historical man from a literal city known as Nazareth or to record for posterity crucial facts about His life and death.


Josephus is another important Jewish witness. The son of Mattathias, he was born into a Jewish upper class priestly family around A.D. 37. His education in biblical law and history stood among the best of his day (Sanders, 1993, p. 15). At age nineteen, he became a Pharisee. When Jerusalem rebelled against the Roman authorities, he was given command of the Jewish forces in Galilee. After losing most of his men, he surrendered to the Romans. He found favor in the man who commanded the Roman army, Vespasian, by predicting that Vespasian soon would be elevated to the position of emperor. Josephus’ prediction came true in A.D. 69 at Vespasian’s inauguration. After the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus assumed the family name of the emperor (Flavius) and settled down to live a life as a government pensioner. It was during these latter years that he wrote Antiquities of the Jews between September 93 and September 94 (Bruce, 1953, pp. 103-104). Josephus himself gave the date as the thirteenth year of Domitian (Rajak, 1984, p. 237). His contemporaries viewed his career indignantly as one of traitorous rebellion to the Jewish nation (Bruce, 1953, p. 104).

Twice in Antiquities, Jesus’ name flowed from Josephus’ pen.

Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside—men and women, slave and free—worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century (1995, p. 222).
Last edited by Scatter on Sat May 06, 2006 1:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Sat May 06, 2006 1:20 pm

Actually Steve, since these early contemporaneous records are from witnesses who are hostile to Christ and His followers, they carry a validity that writings from His followers could not.

They describe Him as a rabble-rouser, a seditious person, a traitor, a magician, a deceiver..........their hostility is clear.

If I quoted the many sources from the supporters of Christ, the argument could be made that they have an agenda. The records I cite do not. They were official records of the Roman Empire and the Jewish scribes that hated Him. They have no hidden agenda to validate the One they hate. They rather wished to expunge Him and His followers.

But ALL of them (who lived in the day Christ lived) accepted Him as a genuine person. They wrote what they KNEW from experience..........

He lived
He gathered a following
He was put to death by Pilate
He was rumored to be arisen from the dead

There is no longer any credible historian who claims Jesus never lived. They only claim that He was simply a man.His divinity may be debated, but His existence cannot be in the light of these (and other) writings.

Sat May 06, 2006 1:46 pm

Steve_M wrote:But you say they hated him, is that because of what you've read they wrote about him or because they were really wrong and not just wrong because the Christains said so ?

I'd say he was a magician. We've seen for ourselves how somethng can be changed from one thing to another and we marvel at how it could be down.
When we learn how we are disappointed because of the simplicity of the deceit, nothing really technical and something that could have been achieved at anytime.

Hey, I'm not really the one to have a conversation with on this. I dont buy into the things I've read as a whole and i hate the idea of having to have a faith to follow that isn't my own and the destruction of innocent lives that religion seems to bring from those with opposing faiths.

I'm just me and i follow the faith of me which i've not written down and i don't have buildings where i have to go to demonstrate my devotion to me and if anyone dont like me thats okay too. that would be me the faith and me the person, either is okay. :lol:


But you're missing the original point. We were trying to determine whether Jesus actually lived........not whether He is divine.

The contemporary sources determine that He did indeed live, and really there is almost no controversy on this point any longer............His claims on divinity are for another thread.

On another note, it's great that we are here to document the advent of "Steveism" so your followers in the coming centuries won't have to waste time like we just did proving the obvious :lol:

Sat May 06, 2006 1:57 pm

I have a book called "Jesus - What Happened?". It was written by three of his bodyguards. Judas claims that Jesus became an alcoholic after he discovered how to turn water into wine. But Thomas didn't believe it.

Sat May 06, 2006 8:21 pm

Scatter wrote:
TJ wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
TJ wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:
Eddie wrote:If you are a heathen non believer like me, then Elvis wins the fame game by default of having existed.


Even among non-believers, it's a probably a scant minority of historians who feel the historical Jesus didn't exist at all.

Them..and Eddie in Scotland. :lol:

Image


It's true to say that there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus really existed though.


That's incorrect T.J. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his writings. One of the passages is controversal, but it is generally held by many, if not most scholars to be basically authentic with some Christian interpolation. Even if you disallow the proposed interpolation your left with basic information about Jesus that agrees with the Gospels. The other passage, concerning the death of James the brother of Jesus, is accepted by the vast majority of scholars and historians. There are also some references to Jesus in Jewish rabbinical writings.


I thought someone might bring up Josephus. Actually, if I'm honest, I thought it would be you Pete :wink: Both passages are considered controversial and particularly the former which has been denounced by many as a complete fabrication. There are good reasons to believe that these were later additions by Christians, not least that they were not referenced by early Christians at all. It wasn't until the early fourth century that a version of the text with these passages was produced. In fact, 100 yrs before that, Origen (a well respected scholar of the early church) said that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ because he didn't believe in any Jewish Messiah figure. I guess Origen must have skipped the Jesus as Messiah passage then? Or could it simply be that the passage hadn't been fabricated yet?

Josephus does in fact give his interpretation of the Messiah prophecy in 'Jewish War' and it has nothing to do with Jesus. He believed that the Jews had misinterpreted the prophecy and it had actually been fulfilled by Roman Emperor Vespasian, who was appointed Emperor in Judea.


Josephus is hardly the only person contemporaneous with Jesus to mention Him.

Just for you, TJ and Eddie....... :D






I'll note at this point, that none of the passages you mention below are contemporaneous.

Scatter wrote:

Do any records exist to document the claim that Jesus Christ “intervened in the course of events” known as world history? Indeed they do.

HOSTILE TESTIMONY

Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as “hostile” sources—writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias.

In his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders stated: “Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world” (1993, p. 49, parenthetical comment in orig.). It is now to this “small elite class of the Roman Empire” that we turn our attention for documentation of Christ’s existence.

Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) should be among the first of several hostile witnesses called to the stand. He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan (see Tacitus, 1952, p. 7). His famous work, Annals, was a history of Rome written in approximately A.D. 115. In the Annals he told of the Great Fire of Rome, which occurred in A.D. 64. Nero, the Roman emperor in office at the time, was suspected by many of having ordered the city set on fire. Tacitus wrote:


"Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome" (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.).

Tacitus hated both Christians and their namesake, Christ. He therefore had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a “deadly superstition.” He did, however, have something to say about it. His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!


No proof here I'm afraid. Firstly, it’s hardly contemporaneous if written 50 years after the death of Jesus. The question is not whether Christians existed. There is irrefutable evidence that they did of course. The question is whether they based their religion on an historical figure. This account confirms nothing, as he could have simply been repeating the Christian beliefs. It would be verifiable if he took the information on the execution from Roman records made at the time of the execution. There’s no evidence that he did. In fact, there’s evidence that he didn’t, because he inaccurately refers to Pilate as the ‘procurator’ of Rome, when he was a ‘prefect’. The reality is that, in spite of the great diligence of Roman record keepers, there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus existing or the crucifixion.

Scatter wrote:
Additional hostile testimony originated from Suetonius, who wrote around A.D. 120. Robert Graves, as translator of Suetonius’ work, The Twelve Caesars, declared:

Suetonius was fortunate in having ready access to the Imperial and Senatorial archives and to a great body of contemporary memoirs and public documents, and in having himself lived nearly thirty years under the Caesars. Much of his information about Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero comes from eye-witnesses of the events described (Suetonius, 1957, p. 7).
The testimony of Suetonius is a reliable piece of historical evidence. Twice in his history, Suetonius specifically mentioned Christ or His followers. He wrote, for example:

“Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius—KB] expelled them from the city” (Claudius, 25:4; note that in Acts 18:2 Luke mentioned this expulsion by Claudius).
Sanders noted that Chrestus is a misspelling of Christos, “the Greek word that translates the Hebrew ‘Messiah’” (1993, pp. 49-50). Suetonius further commented: “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief” (Nero, 16:2).
Again, it is evident that Suetonius and the Roman government had feelings of hatred toward Christ and His alleged mischievous band of rebels. It is equally evident that Suetonius (and, in fact, most of Rome) recognized that Christ was the noteworthy founder of a historically significant new religion.


This is inconclusive. Crestus was a popular name of the time, which may or may not be a corruption of Christ. Even if it is a corruption of Christ, there were at the time many self-proclaimed Messiahs promoting Jewish rebellion, so it does not prove that the reference has anything to do with the Jesus of the Gospels.

No argument that there was a Christian movement, but this doesn’t prove that Jesus was an historical figure.

Scatter wrote:Along with Tacitus and Suetonius, Pliny the Younger must be allowed to take a seat among hostile Roman witnesses. In approximately A.D. 110-111, Pliny was sent by the Roman emperor Trajan to govern the affairs of the region of Bithynia. From this region, Pliny corresponded with the emperor concerning a problem he viewed as quite serious.

He wrote: “I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know the customary penalties or investigations and what limits are observed”
(as quoted in Wilken, 1990, p. 4). He then went on to state:


"This is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist, I sentence them to death" (as quoted in Wilken, p. 4).
Pliny used the term “Christian” or “Christians” seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted term that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny also used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the originator of the “sect.” It is undeniably the case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied in such a way as to draw the attention of the emperor and his magistrates by the time of Pliny’s letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as an actual, historical person.


Only impossible if ignoring all counter arguments and desperate to draw that conclusion. Again Pliny was writing at the start of the second century – not at the time that Jesus was alive. His communication on dealing with what he deemed a troublesome religious sect does not prove the existence of an historical Jesus. All it proves is that there were Christians at this time, which is not in doubt.

Scatter wrote:Celsus, a second-century pagan philosopher, produced a vehement attack upon Christianity by the title of True Discourse (c. A.D. 178). In that document, Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. As he matured, Jesus began to call himself God—an action, said Celsus, which caused his Jewish brethren to kill him. Yet as denigrating as his attack was, Celsus never went so far as to suggest that Christ did not exist.


Again, not contemporaneous and of little value. Just an attack on a religious sect that he was opposed to. We can't assume that he had intimate knowledge of events that were supposed to have occurred over 100 years before.

Scatter wrote:

TESTIMONY OF JESUS AMONG THE JEWS

Even though much of the hostile testimony regarding the existence of Jesus originated from witnesses within the Roman Empire, such testimony is not the only kind of hostile historical evidence available. Anyone familiar with Jewish history will recognize immediately the Mishnah and the Talmud. The Mishnah was a book of Jewish law traditions codified by Rabbi Judah around the year A.D. 200 and known to the Jews as the “whole code of religious jurisprudence” (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). Jewish rabbis studied the Mishnah and even wrote a body of commentary based upon it known as the Gemares. The Mishnah and Gemares are known collectively as the Talmud (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). The complete Talmud surfaced around A.D. 300. If a person as influential as Jesus had existed in the land of Palestine during the first century, surely the rabbis would have had something to say about him. Undoubtedly, a man who supposedly confronted the most astute religious leaders of His day—and won—would be named among the opinions of those who shared His rabbinical title. As Bruce declared:


According to the earlier Rabbis whose opinions are recorded in these writings, Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel, who practised magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said that he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it. He was hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people. His disciples, of whom five are named, healed the sick in his name (1953, p. 102).
First-century Judaism, in large part, refused to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of the God. Yet it did not refuse to accept Him as a historical man from a literal city known as Nazareth or to record for posterity crucial facts about His life and death.



What it actually says is Yeshu of Nazarene. Yeshu is a shortened form of Yehoshua or Joshua, which is Jesus in Greek. A key reason this is taken to be a reference to the Jesus of the Gospels is that has been translated as Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, Nazarene does not refer to Nazareth. A Nazarene was a member of the Nazarene Jewish religious sect - not a person from Nazareth. That, coupled with the fact that Yeshu was a popular name, means that this is not conclusive. Besides, even if Yeshu of Nazarene was a reference to Jesus, once again this is not a contemporary account and not trustworthy.

Scatter wrote:
Josephus is another important Jewish witness. The son of Mattathias, he was born into a Jewish upper class priestly family around A.D. 37. His education in biblical law and history stood among the best of his day (Sanders, 1993, p. 15). At age nineteen, he became a Pharisee. When Jerusalem rebelled against the Roman authorities, he was given command of the Jewish forces in Galilee. After losing most of his men, he surrendered to the Romans. He found favor in the man who commanded the Roman army, Vespasian, by predicting that Vespasian soon would be elevated to the position of emperor. Josephus’ prediction came true in A.D. 69 at Vespasian’s inauguration. After the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus assumed the family name of the emperor (Flavius) and settled down to live a life as a government pensioner. It was during these latter years that he wrote Antiquities of the Jews between September 93 and September 94 (Bruce, 1953, pp. 103-104). Josephus himself gave the date as the thirteenth year of Domitian (Rajak, 1984, p. 237). His contemporaries viewed his career indignantly as one of traitorous rebellion to the Jewish nation (Bruce, 1953, p. 104).

Twice in Antiquities, Jesus’ name flowed from Josephus’ pen.


See my other post for comment on Josephus.

Scatter wrote:
Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside—men and women, slave and free—worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century (1995, p. 222).


We can prove that Jesus was indeed the figure head for this new religious sect in the first century, but we can't prove that he existed. The limited references we can find in the extensive Roman literature are inconclusive and never contemporaneous. There are no references to Jesus in any literature from the time he was supposed to be alive, nor in any official Roman records from that time. I can't say conclusively that the man did not exist, as it's hard to prove a negative. But, it's a huge stretch for anyone to say he did based on the flimsy evidence available. The reality is, we can't prove it either way.
Last edited by TJ on Sun May 07, 2006 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 07, 2006 5:54 am

Since Jesus is frequently referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth," it is interesting to learn that the town now called Nazareth did not exist in the first centuries BCE and CE. Exhaustive archaeological studies have been done by Franciscans to prove the cave they possess was once the home of Jesus' family. But actually they have shown the site to have been a necropolis - a city of the dead - during the first century CE. (Naturally, the Franciscans cannot agree!) With no Nazareth other than a cemetery existing at the time, how could there have been a Jesus of Nazareth? Without an Oz, could there have been a Wizard of Oz?

The above is a footnote from a rather comprehensive article on the subject of did Jesus exist?

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

Sun May 07, 2006 7:12 am

Oh mah boy, I should have started this thread on the off topic. If you're an atheist, :evil:

then Jesus doesn't exist, if you're a Christian, he does exist. :lol:

Sun May 07, 2006 1:39 pm

It's relatively clear, that Jesus as a person did exist! I don't believe in any God, so I think he was some kind of a preatcher. At least, he had some impact, to put it midly.

Sun May 07, 2006 2:22 pm

dl wrote:It's relatively clear, that Jesus as a person did exist!
I don't believe in any God, so I think he was some kind of a preatcher.
At least, he had some impact, to put it midly.


Well, any impact he had came a long, long time after the event.

Sun May 07, 2006 7:42 pm

dl wrote:I have a book called "Jesus - What Happened?". It was written by three of his bodyguards. Judas claims that Jesus became an alcoholic after he discovered how to turn water into wine. But Thomas didn't believe it.


These must be the three bodyguards that Jesus' father fired :D

Sun May 07, 2006 8:48 pm

KiwiAlan wrote:These must be the three bodyguards that Jesus' father fired :D


I'm trying to follow this.

So who was his evil manager, then ?

Sun May 07, 2006 11:26 pm

ColinB wrote:
KiwiAlan wrote:These must be the three bodyguards that Jesus' father fired :D


I'm trying to follow this.

So who was his evil manager, then ?


Wiley people noticed that you can get crossed up without a manager so from AD a manager system was born.

Hence the the expression BC - Before Carny managers.

You will have course noticed that the fitness guru Pontious Pilates worked for a giant multi-national head quartered in Rome - his job was event manager.

Mon May 08, 2006 2:15 am

TJ wrote:
Scatter wrote:
TJ wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
TJ wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:
Eddie wrote:If you are a heathen non believer like me, then Elvis wins the fame game by default of having existed.


Even among non-believers, it's a probably a scant minority of historians who feel the historical Jesus didn't exist at all.

Them..and Eddie in Scotland. :lol:

Image


It's true to say that there isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus really existed though.


That's incorrect T.J. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his writings. One of the passages is controversal, but it is generally held by many, if not most scholars to be basically authentic with some Christian interpolation. Even if you disallow the proposed interpolation your left with basic information about Jesus that agrees with the Gospels. The other passage, concerning the death of James the brother of Jesus, is accepted by the vast majority of scholars and historians. There are also some references to Jesus in Jewish rabbinical writings.


I thought someone might bring up Josephus. Actually, if I'm honest, I thought it would be you Pete :wink: Both passages are considered controversial and particularly the former which has been denounced by many as a complete fabrication. There are good reasons to believe that these were later additions by Christians, not least that they were not referenced by early Christians at all. It wasn't until the early fourth century that a version of the text with these passages was produced. In fact, 100 yrs before that, Origen (a well respected scholar of the early church) said that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ because he didn't believe in any Jewish Messiah figure. I guess Origen must have skipped the Jesus as Messiah passage then? Or could it simply be that the passage hadn't been fabricated yet?

Josephus does in fact give his interpretation of the Messiah prophecy in 'Jewish War' and it has nothing to do with Jesus. He believed that the Jews had misinterpreted the prophecy and it had actually been fulfilled by Roman Emperor Vespasian, who was appointed Emperor in Judea.


Josephus is hardly the only person contemporaneous with Jesus to mention Him.

Just for you, TJ and Eddie....... :D






I'll note at this point, that none of the passages you mention below are contemporaneous.

Scatter wrote:
Hey TJ.........there was no CNN, buddy :lol: . No "on the scene reporting". No "film at 11". The fact is that accounts written within the lifetimes of those who witnessed the events fit the criteria for an era where archives were scriles on parchment or chiseled into stone :wink:


Do any records exist to document the claim that Jesus Christ “intervened in the course of events” known as world history? Indeed they do.

HOSTILE TESTIMONY

Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as “hostile” sources—writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias.

In his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders stated: “Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world” (1993, p. 49, parenthetical comment in orig.). It is now to this “small elite class of the Roman Empire” that we turn our attention for documentation of Christ’s existence.

Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) should be among the first of several hostile witnesses called to the stand. He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan (see Tacitus, 1952, p. 7). His famous work, Annals, was a history of Rome written in approximately A.D. 115. In the Annals he told of the Great Fire of Rome, which occurred in A.D. 64. Nero, the Roman emperor in office at the time, was suspected by many of having ordered the city set on fire. Tacitus wrote:


"Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome" (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.).

Tacitus hated both Christians and their namesake, Christ. He therefore had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a “deadly superstition.” He did, however, have something to say about it. His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!


No proof here I'm afraid. Firstly, it’s hardly contemporaneous if written 50 years after the death of Jesus.

See my post above.........film at 11.

The question is not whether Christians existed. There is irrefutable evidence that they did of course. The question is whether they based their religion on an historical figure. This account confirms nothing, as he could have simply been repeating the Christian beliefs.

Oh, I see..........I suppose it was ANOTHER sect that was called "Christians". And it must have been ANOTHER group of Christians who were persecuted under Nero (I woiuld love evidence of this) whose leader was killed under Tiberius during the reign of Pilate and who originated in Judea. PLEEEEEEZE :roll:

Let's see.......how many sects called "Christian" were extant under Tiberius whose leader was killed by Pilate and whose followers were still persecuted under Nero and started in Judea????.

Oh.......it was the OTHER one obviously :shock:


It would be verifiable if he took the information on the execution from Roman records made at the time of the execution. There’s no evidence that he did. In fact, there’s evidence that he didn’t, because he inaccurately refers to Pilate as the ‘procurator’ of Rome, when he was a ‘prefect’.

So if I referred to Bush as President in one sentence and Commander in Chief in another, it means what exactly??

The reality is that, in spite of the great diligence of Roman record keepers, there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus existing or the crucifixion.

Well.........tens of thousands were crucified. It was the preferred Roman method. But again........how many from Judea, during the reign of Tiberius, under Pilate, whose followers were persecuted by Nero??


Scatter wrote:
Additional hostile testimony originated from Suetonius, who wrote around A.D. 120. Robert Graves, as translator of Suetonius’ work, The Twelve Caesars, declared:

Suetonius was fortunate in having ready access to the Imperial and Senatorial archives and to a great body of contemporary memoirs and public documents, and in having himself lived nearly thirty years under the Caesars. Much of his information about Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero comes from eye-witnesses of the events described (Suetonius, 1957, p. 7).
The testimony of Suetonius is a reliable piece of historical evidence. Twice in his history, Suetonius specifically mentioned Christ or His followers. He wrote, for example:

“Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius—KB] expelled them from the city” (Claudius, 25:4; note that in Acts 18:2 Luke mentioned this expulsion by Claudius).
Sanders noted that Chrestus is a misspelling of Christos, “the Greek word that translates the Hebrew ‘Messiah’” (1993, pp. 49-50). Suetonius further commented: “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief” (Nero, 16:2).
Again, it is evident that Suetonius and the Roman government had feelings of hatred toward Christ and His alleged mischievous band of rebels. It is equally evident that Suetonius (and, in fact, most of Rome) recognized that Christ was the noteworthy founder of a historically significant new religion.


This is inconclusive. Crestus was a popular name of the time, which may or may not be a corruption of Christ. Even if it is a corruption of Christ, there were at the time many self-proclaimed Messiahs promoting Jewish rebellion, so it does not prove that the reference has anything to do with the Jesus of the Gospels.

Of course.......unless one overlooks the obvious point that the "Chrestus" mentioned here is linked to the Christians, who followed Jesus of Nazareth. The only sect called "Christians" in Roman (or other) records is the one linked to Jesus. Unless you have in mind a different group, called by the same name that Nero was persecuting. Film at 11 here would be appreciated :wink:

No argument that there was a Christian movement, but this doesn’t prove that Jesus was an historical figure.

Scatter wrote:Along with Tacitus and Suetonius, Pliny the Younger must be allowed to take a seat among hostile Roman witnesses. In approximately A.D. 110-111, Pliny was sent by the Roman emperor Trajan to govern the affairs of the region of Bithynia. From this region, Pliny corresponded with the emperor concerning a problem he viewed as quite serious.

He wrote: “I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know the customary penalties or investigations and what limits are observed”
(as quoted in Wilken, 1990, p. 4). He then went on to state:


"This is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist, I sentence them to death" (as quoted in Wilken, p. 4).
Pliny used the term “Christian” or “Christians” seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted term that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny also used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the originator of the “sect.” It is undeniably the case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied in such a way as to draw the attention of the emperor and his magistrates by the time of Pliny’s letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as an actual, historical person.


Only impossible if ignoring all counter arguments and desperate to draw that conclusion. Again Pliny was writing at the start of the second century – not at the time that Jesus was alive. His communication on dealing with what he deemed a troublesome religious sect does not prove the existence of an historical Jesus. All it proves is that there were Christians at this time, which is not in doubt.

But he relates them to their leader Christ.........unless, again, you are referring to your oft-cited "mirror group" who happen to have the same name, with a leader with the same title, who was also alive during Tiberius' reign, arose in Judea, was killed under Pilate, and who still had a burgeoning movement at this point in history.

If you indeed have some evidence of this nebulous group you keep referring to, I wish you'd share it so I would know if I'm following the right Christ, and I am not from the second ,ethereal, never before heard of group called Christians who were led by a different Jesus.. Because in order for your postulate to be taken seriously, there must have been more than one. Please forward any info quickly........I've been feeling sickly and don't want to die until I know which one I'm following :wink:


Scatter wrote:Celsus, a second-century pagan philosopher, produced a vehement attack upon Christianity by the title of True Discourse (c. A.D. 178). In that document, Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. As he matured, Jesus began to call himself God—an action, said Celsus, which caused his Jewish brethren to kill him. Yet as denigrating as his attack was, Celsus never went so far as to suggest that Christ did not exist.


Again, not contemporaneous and of little value. Just an attack on a religious sect that he was opposed to. We can't assume that he had intimate knowledge of events that were supposed to have occurred over 100 years before.

Again, he linked the current sect of Christians with Jesus, and never (though much closer to His time) did it occur to him to attempt to deny Jesus lived. No one ever di, in fact, until relatively recently. So we are supposed to believe that 2000 years removed from the events that the critics only now have come to realize what history had wrong within the generation the events occurred in??

Scatter wrote:

TESTIMONY OF JESUS AMONG THE JEWS

Even though much of the hostile testimony regarding the existence of Jesus originated from witnesses within the Roman Empire, such testimony is not the only kind of hostile historical evidence available. Anyone familiar with Jewish history will recognize immediately the Mishnah and the Talmud. The Mishnah was a book of Jewish law traditions codified by Rabbi Judah around the year A.D. 200 and known to the Jews as the “whole code of religious jurisprudence” (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). Jewish rabbis studied the Mishnah and even wrote a body of commentary based upon it known as the Gemares. The Mishnah and Gemares are known collectively as the Talmud (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). The complete Talmud surfaced around A.D. 300. If a person as influential as Jesus had existed in the land of Palestine during the first century, surely the rabbis would have had something to say about him. Undoubtedly, a man who supposedly confronted the most astute religious leaders of His day—and won—would be named among the opinions of those who shared His rabbinical title. As Bruce declared:


According to the earlier Rabbis whose opinions are recorded in these writings, Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel, who practised magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said that he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it. He was hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people. His disciples, of whom five are named, healed the sick in his name (1953, p. 102).
First-century Judaism, in large part, refused to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of the God. Yet it did not refuse to accept Him as a historical man from a literal city known as Nazareth or to record for posterity crucial facts about His life and death.



What it actually says is Yeshu of Nazarene. Yeshu is a shortened form of Yehoshua or Joshua, which is Jesus in Greek.

Exactly, a shortened form of Yehoshua. Jesus' name in the vernacular. So, in other words, if I called someone Ed instead of Edward, I couldn't be referring to the same person??

A key reason this is taken to be a reference to the Jesus of the Gospels is that has been translated as Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, Nazarene does not refer to Nazareth. A Nazarene was a member of the Nazarene Jewish religious sect - not a person from Nazareth.

Correct.....how does this eliminate Jesus?? A Nazarite was a sect that trained Rabbis. There were a dozen others where Jesus could have received such training. If He was called the Nazarene (the correct translation) it seems He got His training from this sect. So what??

That, coupled with the fact that Yeshu was a popular name, means that this is not conclusive. Besides, even if Yeshu of Nazarene was a reference to Jesus, once again this is not a contemporary account and not trustworthy.

I see..........so once again the Mirror Jesus whose career, teachings, followers, era, area,mode of death, and name of followers happen to exactly match the Jesus of the Gospels makes his appearance. This source refers to a Yeshu (shortened form of Yeshua's name) the Nazarite (which refers to the sect that history links to Jesus) who was a "transgressor in Israel,(where Jesus taught) who practised magic,(performed magical or miraculous feats like Jesus) scorned the words of the wise,(stood against the teachings of the religious leaders like Jesus) led the people astray,( gathered a following unto Himself like Jesus) and said that he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it(an exact quote of what Jesus said in the Gospels). He was hanged on Passover Eve (precisely when Jesus was killed, and in the same manner........Romans hung on a cross, Jews stoned) for heresy (the charge of the religious leaders against Jesus) and misleading the people. His disciples, of whom five are named, healed the sick in his name (like Jesus taught His followers to do)

So, once again, we need another Yeshu, from Israel, who was a Nazarite, who gathered disciples, who also claimed that He came "not to destroy the Law but to add to it",who was murdered in the Roman manner, who was murdered on Passover Eve for heresy, who taught his disciples to heal in His name. The Mirror Yeshua Strikes Again!!!!! :lol: ( (1953, p

Scatter wrote:
Josephus is another important Jewish witness. The son of Mattathias, he was born into a Jewish upper class priestly family around A.D. 37. His education in biblical law and history stood among the best of his day (Sanders, 1993, p. 15). At age nineteen, he became a Pharisee. When Jerusalem rebelled against the Roman authorities, he was given command of the Jewish forces in Galilee. After losing most of his men, he surrendered to the Romans. He found favor in the man who commanded the Roman army, Vespasian, by predicting that Vespasian soon would be elevated to the position of emperor. Josephus’ prediction came true in A.D. 69 at Vespasian’s inauguration. After the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus assumed the family name of the emperor (Flavius) and settled down to live a life as a government pensioner. It was during these latter years that he wrote Antiquities of the Jews between September 93 and September 94 (Bruce, 1953, pp. 103-104). Josephus himself gave the date as the thirteenth year of Domitian (Rajak, 1984, p. 237). His contemporaries viewed his career indignantly as one of traitorous rebellion to the Jewish nation (Bruce, 1953, p. 104).

Twice in Antiquities, Jesus’ name flowed from Josephus’ pen.


See my other post for comment on Josephus.

Scatter wrote:
Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside—men and women, slave and free—worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century (1995, p. 222).


We can prove that Jesus was indeed the figure head for this new religious sect in the first century, but we can't prove that he existed. The limited references we can find in the extensive Roman literature are inconclusive and never contemporaneous. There are no references to Jesus in any literature from the time he was supposed to be alive, nor in any official Roman records from that time. I can't say conclusively that the man did not exist, as it's hard to prove a negative. But, it's a huge stretch for anyone to say he did based on the flimsy evidence available. The reality is, we can't prove it either way.

I find it odd to think that you find it infinitely easier to believe in "Mirror Jesus" with his "Mirror Christian" sect than to consider that these records refer to the Jesus whose career, life, death, teachings, nationality, followers,etc we are all familiar with and are accurately described in the records. Sometimes the obvious answer is obvious for a reason. The old adage of "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are, it's a duck (and EPE has it up for sale :lol: )applies here.
But, you have a right to see it that way.........more power to'ya my friend!!!!!

BTW.........

I can't wait to hear about the other rock'n'roll singer from the '50s out of Memphis who changed popular culture, made movies through the 60s, made a comeback that took him through the 70s until he died in his bathroom. We'll call him "Mirror Elvis":wink:


Mon May 08, 2006 2:59 am

dl wrote:I have a book called "Jesus - What Happened?". It was written by three of his bodyguards. Judas claims that Jesus became an alcoholic after he discovered how to turn water into wine. But Thomas didn't believe it.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Man, I almost choked when I read this!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mon May 08, 2006 5:21 am

Scatter, did you read the link I provided in my post?

Here's the link again:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

(The part about absence of evidence and evidence of absence is especially poignant).

[/quote]

Mon May 08, 2006 2:32 pm

jaywhite wrote:Scatter, did you read the link I provided in my post?

Here's the link again:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

(The part about absence of evidence and evidence of absence is especially poignant).

[/quote]

Goodnes Jay..........how much time do you think I have??? :lol: :lol:

I'll look at it further, but the scan I did uncovered nothing that hasn't been addressed a million times (despite the authors copius plagiarism from sources Ive see a million times. Original research indeed :lol: :http://www.christiananswers.net/lol: )