10-26-2006, 05:01 PM
|
#21
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Creston
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sowa
I don't want to really get into this because I don't have enough of a background on biblical study, but I've read in many places that Greek scholars added to and edited the bible to increase continuity. If this is true couldn't the gospels be edited so they are similar in recollection in Jesus' life?
|
The last New Testament book was the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It was written around 90 ad. The 27 books(letters) that make up the New Testament wasn't compiled in one spot until a century later. Individual churches preserved, copied and shared the books they had in their possession. These letters were considered sacred and were not likely to be altered. Also, because different independent churches kept and copied theses letters it would be easy to identify one that had been altered. We also have quotations of these scriptures from letters written by Pastors of these early second century churches. They also help to com firm or expose variate texts.
These Pastors(called church Fathers) also give testimony(some eye witness ) of how the 12 Apostles died. The Bible itself only records Jame's death.
The reason why Cheese says their is no evidence of Jesus' existence is because he rejects the bibles ample independent testimony. Higher critics doubted the existence of King David as well until a tablet was found in the seventies with his name on it. Why a stone tablet that happens to mention his name is more reliable then a half dozen or so books written by him or contemporaries exposes the biases of these unbelieving scholars.
|
|
|
|
10-26-2006, 06:25 PM
|
#22
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
Black White Pink or Orange...doesnt matter what color they pick...its all a figment of someones VIVID imagination. The main reason no one can agree on color, size, girth, sex or hair color is because there is nothing...NADA...ZIPPO to even suggest there was a JC in the first place.
IF there was proof we would have no doubts, no guessing.
|
To be fair, (and yes, I read your articles) there is indeed evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth did exist. The record is in the Roman census around the time of his birth, give or take 5 years... Whether or not this Jesus of Nazareth is the Jesus of the bible, or whether or not anything in the bible actually happened is a totally different argument. There's a ton of reasons why you could be right, and there's a lot of reasons to explain the absent record of his death... one I heard was that Jesus didn't use his actual name when preaching for unknown reasons (I really didn't look into this cause I don't really care, I studied religions in High School and University cause it was easy marks)...and was only referred to by his real name by his closest followers, and ergo, Jesus in the bible could equal Joe Schmo in the Roman records.
Note that your source makes no mention of whether or not a Jesus was ever born, simply that there's no record of him being sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate.
I'm not a real devout Christian, and I lean more towards the Jesus as a con man rather than Jesus as the Son of God side, but there are facts to prove someone of that general description did exist.
Last edited by Thunderball; 10-26-2006 at 06:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2006, 07:03 PM
|
#24
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
To be fair, (and yes, I read your articles) there is indeed evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth did exist. The record is in the Roman census around the time of his birth, give or take 5 years... Whether or not this Jesus of Nazareth is the Jesus of the bible, or whether or not anything in the bible actually happened is a totally different argument. There's a ton of reasons why you could be right, and there's a lot of reasons to explain the absent record of his death... one I heard was that Jesus didn't use his actual name when preaching for unknown reasons (I really didn't look into this cause I don't really care, I studied religions in High School and University cause it was easy marks)...and was only referred to by his real name by his closest followers, and ergo, Jesus in the bible could equal Joe Schmo in the Roman records.
Note that your source makes no mention of whether or not a Jesus was ever born, simply that there's no record of him being sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate.
I'm not a real devout Christian, and I lean more towards the Jesus as a con man rather than Jesus as the Son of God side, but there are facts to prove someone of that general description did exist.
|
Well actually if you did read what I posted you would find the exact proof you suggest wasnt there. Regardless...it is a VERY long read and understandable that most would bore of it within a few paragraphs.
troutman has posted many links on the roman census, as has Cowperson and myself. Here are some facts...
--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based his entire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus’ resurrection;
--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;
--the year of Jesus’ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable;
--there is no historical validation of King Herod’s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at the time of Jesus’s alleged birth;
--Jesus’ ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus’ father Joseph;
--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth;
--the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt;
--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;
--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific;
--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence; and even
--the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin.
Former evangelical minister Dan Barker points out in his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, “[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.”
Did Jesus Exist?
Further...if you have proof of Jesus Christ being recorded in any census please let the Historians know...because if you do have something its likely a fabrication.
Roman history records no census ever in which each man was required to return to the city where his ancestral line originated. That’s not how the Romans did things.
Last edited by Cheese; 10-26-2006 at 07:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2006, 07:24 PM
|
#25
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
|
The best I could do in short notice was this site that compiles Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius and Phlegon. I know its a religious website... the only thing I could find similar was atheist, attempting to debunk these guys using favorable translations. I did learn in class that there are Roman records of a Chrestus, Christus or something pertaining to a Jesus of Nazareth... it was a few years ago.
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php
http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html
Its really not important enough for me to spend hours scouring the U of C Online Journals for something more scholarly. Essentially, either you believe these guys, believe these guys and the Bible (even if it embellishes big time) or you don't. I don't think these threads will really change anyone's minds. Kind of like the abortion debate. There's the Pro-Lifers, the Pro-Choice, and the rest that couldn't be bothered to take a stand. In this case, the Pro-Religious Jesus, the Pro-Historical Jesus, the Pro-Atheist crowd, and again, the rest that couldn't be bothered to take a stand.
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2006, 07:46 PM
|
#26
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based his entire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus’ resurrection;
This one is neither here nor there... I'm not arguing Jesus was divine, just that someone similar to him existed and started some trouble that directly or indirectly lead to Christianity. He could have easily been told by someone else to spread the rumor that this con man was divine.
--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;
Nor should they. Why give Jesus a tangible appearance and risk alienating the people you're trying to indoctrinate. Jews have been white, black, brown and everything in between. Real or not, I'd leave this part out too if I wanted to create a sellable legend.
--the year of Jesus’ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable;
The precise year is indeterminable, even with intact Roman censuses, most of which were destroyed, they still couldnt say, hmm... December 25th, 1 AD. There's enough evidence to indicate that a Jesus like person was likely born between something like 2 and 9 CE/AD. Divine, Regular Schmo or otherwise, we have to accept that 2000 year old events of one person deemed inconsequential to the ruling elite of the day are tough to completely nail down. We're not talking cities being wiped out. That they could nail down, cause it mattered to the government. (ie: Vesuvius = August 24, AD 79)
--there is no historical validation of King Herod’s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at the time of Jesus’s alleged birth;
Again, there doesn't have to be. The Jesus of Myth needed that story to establish divinity. The Jesus of history might have had a normal childhood.
--Jesus’ ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus’ father Joseph;
The Jesus of Myth needs this connection cause of superstition. Again, the likely Jesus who more than likely existed in some interpretation didn't have to be. Of course, he could have lied about it too... not like they had paternity tests in AD 5-50.
--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth;
This is a ridiculous explanation. This is easily dismissed as a screw up, regardless if Jesus is real, fake or otherwise. Maybe he was senile or had some sort of dementia? Who knows.
--the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt;
Not surprising... they were written long after the fact, historical or divine. There's bound to be screw ups either way.
--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;
Just a bunch of writers from the general era who didn't grace the Bible with their presence.
--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific;
Jesus wasn't important to Tacitus. In fact, he even claims Jesus is a con. He refers to him more like a historical footnote.
--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence; and even
--the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin.
They've also been bent to an anti-Christian spin just as easily. That's part of the fun. The fact is, you have at least five different people of non-Christian background, all describing a character that fits the description and somehow they must all be lying? I'm not saying the divine Jesus ever existed, but there was clearly someone they either based the myth on who had nothing to do with the Bible writings, or someone that came close that they sugar coated.
Former evangelical minister Dan Barker points out in his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, “[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.”
Did Jesus Exist?
Further...if you have proof of Jesus Christ being recorded in any census please let the Historians know...because if you do have something its likely a fabrication.
Roman history records no census ever in which each man was required to return to the city where his ancestral line originated. That’s not how the Romans did things.
The "census" I was referred to likely meant one of the writers, likely a Roman one (probably Tacitus or Pliny). It was long ago that I took that class, but it was considered evidence enough to substantiate some sort of Jesus of History.
The requirement was probably just tossed in the Bible for effect. Likely because of the likely fact that Jesus of history wasn't born in Bethlehem, as the prophecy said the Messiah would be born in. So, a reason was invented to put him there. The Romans would have been logistically challenged to have a forced and enforceable census at that time. The Romans were often used as rallying point for early Christians... which is why this was invented.
|
Phew... can't believe I'm taking the time to defend this. I'm not even a Jesus freak or anything. I'm just pretty sure there was a Jesus of History that the religion was (loosely) based on.
Last edited by Thunderball; 10-26-2006 at 07:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2006, 09:01 PM
|
#27
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Creston
|
[quote=Cheese;608308]Well actually if you did read what I posted you would find the exact proof you suggest wasn't there. Regardless...it is a VERY long read and understandable that most would bore of it within a few paragraphs.
troutman has posted many links on the roman census, as has Cowperson and myself. Here are some facts...
--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based his entire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus’ resurrection; [/endquote]
True but Paul's epistles testify to the amount of People who witnessed the resurrection. It is he who reported that on one occasion Jesus appeared to 500 people at once. He witnessed the eyewitnesses dying for their faith in the one you say doesn't exist and history tells us that he followed them fearlessly.
[quote]--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;
--the year of Jesus’ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable; [/endquote]
I've read they recently discovered partial records of the census that occurred at the time of Jesus' birth. When they figure out the date of that census they should have a better idea. Remember it wasn't that many years ago that critics doubted the existence of a person named Pilate.
[quote]--there is no historical validation of King Herod’s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at the time of Jesus’s alleged birth;[/endquote]
Maybe Herod didn't want that little news item recorded in the official records.
[quote]--Jesus’ ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus’ father Joseph;[/endquote]
One gospel traces the royal linage from David to Joseph- the husband of Mary. The other traces the linage from Adam down to Mary if I remember right.
[quote]--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth;[/endquote]
The gospel of Matthew more than any other shows the many fulfilled Old Testament prophesies. It has been described as the gospel unto the Jews. The argument that Matthew misquoted Isaiah's prophesy is false. Isaiah prophesied in Hebrew that Jesus would be born of a maiden. Matthew in translating the prophesy used a Greek word meaning virgin. The argument stems from those who deny the virgin birth. Matthew simply recognized that a maiden was a young virgin. Maidens were virgins.
[quote]--the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt;[/endquote]
By you and folks like you.
[quote]--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;[/endquote]
You think that some records could have been lost in the last 2000 years?
[quote]--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific;
--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence; and even
--the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin.[/endquote]
I agree with you concerning Josephus. The others I'm not familiar with.
[quote]Former evangelical minister Dan Barker points out in his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, “[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.”
[endquote]
The 27 books of the New Testament were written by contemporaries of Jesus Christ. They have been shown to be historically accurate. Citing the correct rulers of the time and geography. We also have the church Fathers in the second Century who quoted, collected, and copied the letters which made up the New Testament. They are the ones who give our only record of the apostles deaths.
[quote]Further...if you have proof of Jesus Christ being recorded in any census please let the Historians know...because if you do have something its likely a fabrication.
Roman history records no census ever in which each man was required to return to the city where his ancestral line originated. That’s not how the Romans did things.[/endquote]
I will look for the article I read.
|
|
|
|
|
10-27-2006, 07:20 AM
|
#28
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
|
Some great links Mr trout...I forgot about that Judas thread, and I agree Textcritic was an excellent respondent for the Christian side.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:49 PM.
|
|
