Bible and Jesus

R

robtex

Registered Senior Member
I have been reading all these Jesus threads and started one and I noticed a trend here that I see excuse my pun, religiously, for the defense Jesus divinity. That trend is that all the arguements that I have ever heard for the divinity of Jesus and the trinity (and I am in the bible belt in USA--so believe me when I say I have heard my fill) have used the Bible as the source. I mean all, I mean 100 %. No Christian, has ever, even once, used a souce other than the Bible.

It makes me curious. There were very few Christians at the time of Jesus so-called cruxifiction ( I am not saying yea or nay to the cruxifiction part. I just don't know). And very few after. Yet outside the Bible .......there seems to be no historical documentation of his demise. No pagan, no hindu, no athiest mentions it ...or at least no
Christian has ever used a reference outside of the bible to "prove" Jesus is part of a trinity.

A couple of questions:

1) am i just asking the wrong Christians or is there a source outside of the Bible detailing Jesus cruxifiction and resurection and ascention?

2) If the Bible is the ONLY souce of documentation for the cruxifiction, resurrenction and ascention of Christ and Christians believe it in contrast to non -christian hisory, which is devoid of the transformation of Christ, than how could you expect non-christians to think you are not blinded by faith..

3) Last, as conversion is a primary goal of most Christian organizations, (not saying it isn't of other religions), why would you expect to convert a non-christian based on a single text that the person has no prior (since he is not a christian) faith in?

I am not belittling yall.....but it seems like an obstacle and since conversion and salvation are cultural goals of the Christian religion I am sure somebody, somewhere had a pow-wow with their bible group and wrestled with this question.

So are there any non Biblical sources for the final human days of Christ and why do you use a book to convert with that somebody did not use as a belief tool before meeting you?
 
I well thought out question, robtex.
unfortunately I cant see you getting, as good an answer.
even a lot of theolgions, have questioned themselves regarding the NT.
but they still come up with, an unreasonable answer.
it's basical just blind faith.
 
fahrenheit 451
I well thought out question, robtex.
unfortunately I cant see you getting, as good an answer.
even a lot of theolgions, have questioned themselves regarding the NT.
but they still come up with, an unreasonable answer.
it's basical just blind faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------I well I well thought out answear, fahrenheit 451.

but you still come up with, an nonsense answer.
it's basical just blind answear.
on this topic mr fahrenheit 451 you've scored 0
because you gave a blind answear,ok? mr?
prove me wrong! tell us who are you, theolgion


Philosopher Philocrazy
 
The New Testament has time and time again been shown to be impeccably accurate in terms of historical accounts.

Even secular archaelogists have relied on it's accounts after having first questioned it's validity.

This is simply a poor, sad argument that must be dismissed in light of the historical accuracies of the New Testament.
 
Yo SouthStar,

Quote Robtex:
1) am i just asking the wrong Christians or is there a source outside of the Bible detailing Jesus cruxifiction and resurection and ascention?

Quote SouthStar:
The New Testament has time and time again been shown to be impeccably accurate in terms of historical accounts.

Mark 15:33
And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

An noticable event like a 3 hour darkness during daylight hours, especially when witnessed by a "multitude", would certainly attract attention. Yet no mention of this event is found in any contemporary writing.

And no, there are no recognised authentic contemporary extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ, his divinity or his miracles.

Allcare.
 
I never noticed this of all the Religion threads. Come to think of it, they DO only quote the Bible!

Hey, QUOTE SOMETHING ELSE please! Thank you. Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all!

Âðelwulf
 
The Bible consists of all related and relevant material to the subject. It is not a "single text", but a collection that has become canonized. If you only consider just the books of the OT to be "bible" then everything else is extra-biblical! That's one reason. The other is that we don't quote from sources whose authority was rejected or that contain non-essential information, although we do consult them. If people are alreday so critical about the most accepted sources, then there's no use quoting anything else except by way of comparison, is there? It won't be more convincing.

Let's say we find another one of Paul's epistles. Will you reconsider what he said in the ones we already have just because it's "not in the Bible"? I doubt it. Have you ever heard anyone play one of Beethoven's symphonies that doesn't come out of a collection of Beethoven symphonies? Watch his reaction when you ask him to. If you want to hear a different message, consult a different source...
 
Last edited:
-Tacitus, who loathed the Christian "plague," recorded around A.D. 115 in "Roman Annals" that Jesus "was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."
Click to expand...

The most important non-Christian source is "Jewish Antiquities," completed in A.D. 93 by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.

One passage cites the execution in A.D. 62 of "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name."
Click to expand...
source
 
spidergoat: source
*************
M*W: Hello, spider:

I'm not that knowledgeable of these two sources, but I believe they have both been discussed on this forum and were known to have these passages forged into these works at a later date. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these two sources only state that Jesus may have lived, but they don't refer to him as the messiah.
 
stretched said:
Yo SouthStar,

Quote Robtex:
1) am i just asking the wrong Christians or is there a source outside of the Bible detailing Jesus cruxifiction and resurection and ascention?

Quote SouthStar:
The New Testament has time and time again been shown to be impeccably accurate in terms of historical accounts.

Mark 15:33
And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

An noticable event like a 3 hour darkness during daylight hours, especially when witnessed by a "multitude", would certainly attract attention. Yet no mention of this event is found in any contemporary writing.

And no, there are no recognised authentic contemporary extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ, his divinity or his miracles.

Allcare.
Click to expand...


Why don't you actually get to the point and disprove any historical narrative in the New Testament? Either that or hold your peace.

Simply because there are no "recognised authentic contemporary extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ, his divinity or his miracles" does not discredit the Gospels. Assuredly, you are mistaken:

The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord’s existence is that of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). In Antiquities of the Jews, the historian twice referred to Jesus. In one passage he called Jesus “the Christ,” referred to His “marvelous deeds,” and alluded to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Though some would dispute the genuineness of much of this reference, suggesting that it was embellished by an over-zealous Christian scribe, the passage, as it stands in all standard texts, can be defended (Jackson, 1991, pp. 29-30). In another place, Josephus commented on the trial of James, and identified Him as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” (20.9.1).

Additionally, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus’ existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera.

Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation:

“The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera” (1965, p. 76).

The Talmud also refers to Jesus’ miracles as “magic,” and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Do you forget that there were countless who witnessed Christ and His miracles and if there was at all some doubt to the credibility of the narratives there would have been an uproar? Surely you cannot overlook this fact.

Another line of evidence establishing the historicity of Jesus is the fact that the earliest enemies of the Christian faith did not deny that Christ actually lived (see Hurst, 1897, 1:180-189).

1. Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His “True Discourse” (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera (see above). As he grew, He announced Himself to be God, deceiving many. Celsus charged that Christ’s own people killed Him, and that His resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned the historicity of Jesus.

2. Lucian of Samosata (c. A.D. 115-200) was called “the Voltaire of Grecian literature.” He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known “sophist” Who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus.

3. Porphyry of Tyre was born about A.D. 233, studied philosophy in Greece, and lived in Sicily where he wrote fifteen books against the Christian faith. In one of his books, “Life of Pythagoras,” he contended that magicians of the pagan world exhibited greater powers than Christ. His argument was an inadvertent concession of Jesus’ existence, and power.
Click to expand...

Quotes from: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/historicityJesus.htm



If you actually have anything from the New Testament that has been archaeologically proven to be simply untrue, then you have something to say.

In Christ,
 
§our§tar: Why don't you actually get to the point and disprove any historical narrative in the New Testament? Either that or hold your peace.
************
M*W: When somebody posts something YOU don't want to read (i.e. learn the truth), you tell them to "hold your peace!" This is a public forum, on the Internet, no less, and YOU certainly are in no authority to tell anyone what to say or NOT to say! If you don't like it, why don't you get off the religion forum, cause we ain't gonna change!
*************
§our§tar: Simply because there are no "recognised authentic contemporary extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ, his divinity or his miracles" does not discredit the Gospels. Assuredly, you are mistaken.
*************
M*W: There are no "recognised authentic contemporary extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ, his divinity or his miracles," because they didn't exist.
*************
§our§tar: Do you forget that there were countless who witnessed Christ and His miracles and if there was at all some doubt to the credibility of the narratives there would have been an uproar? Surely you cannot overlook this fact.
*************
M*W: How could there be an uproar when no one witnessed anything? Okay, I will at least give a Rabbi named Jesus credit for living at the time, but Rabbi's don't perform miracles, or they may, I don't know, but Jesus was nothing more than a Rabbi, if he lived at all.
*************
§our§tar: Quotes from: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/historicityJesus.htm
*************
M*W: Why must you use one little website as a reference when there is an abundance of knowledge abounding on the Internet and in bookstores everywhere refuting Christianity? Oh, yeah, I forgot, you're an ignorant xian who has only one reference source.
*************
§our§tar: If you actually have anything from the New Testament that has been archaeologically proven to be simply untrue, then you have something to say.
*************
M*W: What a hypocrite! YOU use one little website for your proof, but YOU expect others to provide YOU with archaeological proof! There's more scientific proof available now to crush your little "blieble."

I suggest you read the following websites, but I know you want, so for all you other anti-christians out there, this will prove enjoyable readings:

http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm

http://www.angelfilre.com/rebellion/2cent-testament/

http://artfuljesus.0catch.com/paine.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/peterflood.html

http://www.rennes-le-chateau.com
 
Though some would dispute the genuineness of much of this reference, suggesting that it was embellished by an over-zealous Christian scribe, the passage, as it stands in all standard texts, can be defended (Jackson, 1991, pp. 29-30).
Click to expand...
I'd like to learn more about how the passage can be defended.

The authenticity of the entire chapter (18.3.3) may be questionable, as opposed to a few "embellishments".
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sources.html
 
Yo SouthStar,

Quote stretched:
"An noticable event like a 3 hour darkness during daylight hours, especially when witnessed by a "multitude", would certainly attract attention. Yet no mention of this event is found in any contemporary writing."

And no, there is no evidence for an eclipse at the time.

In my opinion only, the silence is enough to question the veracity of the above events. So, to continue from there, one would assume that instead of fleeting and questionable mentions of jesus in the contemporary writings, there should be a wealth of commentary regarding the miracles of the blind seeing, the dead rising and soforth.

Quote SS:
"Do you forget that there were countless who witnessed Christ and His miracles and if there was at all some doubt to the credibility of the narratives there would have been an uproar? Surely you cannot overlook this fact."

Then why the silence?

"Another line of evidence establishing the historicity of Jesus is the fact that the earliest enemies of the Christian faith did not deny that Christ actually lived (see Hurst, 1897, 1:180-189).

1. Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His “True Discourse” (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera (see above). As he grew, He announced Himself to be God, deceiving many. Celsus charged that Christ’s own people killed Him, and that His resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned the historicity of Jesus.

2. Lucian of Samosata (c. A.D. 115-200) was called “the Voltaire of Grecian literature.” He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known “sophist” Who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus.

3. Porphyry of Tyre was born about A.D. 233, studied philosophy in Greece, and lived in Sicily where he wrote fifteen books against the Christian faith. In one of his books, “Life of Pythagoras,” he contended that magicians of the pagan world exhibited greater powers than Christ. His argument was an inadvertent concession of Jesus’ existence, and power."

None of the above can be considered "contemporary" The Christian cult and trappings were well established by then.

Quote SS:
"If you actually have anything from the New Testament that has been archaeologically proven to be simply untrue, then you have something to say."

As an example, it is widely known that there is no evidence whatsoever, that the town of Nazareth, from which Jesus' mother supposedly came, ever existed at the time he was supposedly living there.

Allcare.

(Thanks for the interesting links Medicine Woman)
 
T said:
I'd like to learn more about how the passage can be defended.

The authenticity of the entire chapter (18.3.3) may be questionable, as opposed to a few "embellishments".
Click to expand...
That's just one opinion. Please take note of and perhaps consider this one: The Testimonium Flavium

Just an appetizer:
"For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator."​
 
Good read, Jenyar.
As you say, another opinion.
The only things that trouble me about the Luke/common source theory:

The author does not seriously address the possibility of the entire paragraph being a later addition (beyond saying "the style and vocabulary of the passage is essentially that of Josephus").

I think that this is significant (from the link I posted):
Immediately after this third paragraph, the fourth paragraph starts with: "At about the same time, another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." An obvious question arises: what does Josephus mean, in the context of the arrangement of the paragraphs, by another sad calamity? In its present location the fourth paragraph follows the paragraph about Jesus. Was Jesus the sad calamity? Or was it his being risen from the dead? Or was the continued existence of Christians at the date of writing the "sad calamity"? In short, the sentence in the fourth paragraph does not make sense following the third. It only makes sense if it follows immediately after the second paragraph. Here the wholesale massacre of the Jews was the sad calamity Josephus was referring to.
Click to expand...

The common source idea is intriguing, but what would happen if this source was discovered? Would Christian scholars accept it as canonical, thereby giving legitimacy to Josephus as providing non-Christian evidence of the historical Jesus.... or would they claim it as heretical and reject it like they have done for the other "Lost Gospels" of Nag Hammadi, etc. ?
 
If it corresponds to Luke, then it would support the canon, not contradict it. Luke would have had access to it, and we accept his authority. The scrolls at Qumran also support the integrity of the Bible, since it showed 99% correspondence to our manuscripts that were a thousand years later. What you're talking about is the gnostic gospels, which were built on the ones we have - they don't predate them.
 
M*W, if you're going to criticise SouthStar for citing a website, and you follow by posting a buncha websites, well, shit, do I need to spell this one out?
 
StarOfEight: M*W, if you're going to criticise SourStar for citing a website, and you follow by posting a buncha websites, well, shit, do I need to spell this one out?
*************
M*W: SourStar only cites ONE website redundantly. I cited multiple websites on the specific topic, and NONE were from the bible. Therefore, they were OBJECTIVE websites as compared to SourStar's ONE SUBECTIVE website.

Is there any part of this you don't understand?
 
You honestly expect me to consider the Nazorean Essenes - "A Buddhist Branch of Original Christianity" - an objective website?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top