*************
M*W: I'm interested in Egyptian mythology myself, but for some reason I couldn't open the link.
Did Jesus' disciples need proof of Jesus' word?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
*************
M*W: I'm interested in Egyptian mythology myself, but for some reason I couldn't open the link.
if your close minded, it just shows your delusional in prefering to believe something purely on faith alone.
everything in the links is sourced, it not just a bunch of people who have no belief, it's all fact based.ok.
Hi MW.
It opens for me.
Anyways, if you do a search on Muata Ashbys' book: "The Mystical Journey from Jesus to Christ"
You should get lot's of links to check out.
Jesus was one of the greatest enlightened persons that have walked through this Earth, his parables and anecdotes show the greatest kind of wisdom, divine wisdom. If it wasn´t Jesus who did or say this things, then there had to be someone with such wisdom.
Jesus is not a matter of belief or non-belief, it is a matter of looking at his words as the greatest kind of poetry there has even been, since Gautama Buddha.
I have already geeser... You can find most of it in Wiki (a relatively neutral secular source), from which I quote...
Wikipedia said:
Moreover....
Wikipedia said:
I think Wisdom Seeker expressed it succinctly...geeser said:
WisdomSeeker said:
Do you believe that? I certainly don't! God is "the Ground of our Being", not some 'skydaddy' floating out in space.geeser said:
P.S. The reason I'm ROFLing is because I (and other theists) get used to being accused of being nutjobs, holding 'evidentially poorly unsupported' beliefs. This belief is in the same line of country! Welcome to our ranks!
1) The detailed accuracy (or possibility of embellishment) of the gospels is a very different question from their complete fabrication.
2) The gospels have been proved accurate in certain historical detail against other records e.g. Pontius Pilate's Prefecture.
3) The gospels were written because of the extra-ordinary events they describe. To deny that such events are possible because they are extra-ordinary is simply a prejudice. This is not a 'common court of law' situation.
4) The laws of physics are not necessarily broken if a higher physical law is invoked. Thus massive objects can levitate (seemingly physically impossible 100 years ago) by skillful application of the bernoulli effect. Jesus 'trancendence' (which wasn't levitation) may be possible, with superior knowledge (i.e. advanced psychokinetic abilities)! Clearly, it is impossible for you or I in 2007 (which is the standard you are applying), but not catagorically 'impossible' by the laws of physics.
However, possible or not, elaboration or not - casting doubt on the miracles described does not disprove his existence as a historical person, which is well documented!
Never trust any text from anyone with any bias without taking their motives into account. That applies very much to the case in point about the non-existence of Jesus. It seems an unlikely case based on poor evidence but motivated by a strong anti-christian bias among it's proponents!KennyJC said:
Last edited:
where.
hardly secular, however being the facetious person I am, I shall misquote (just a tiny bit) Wisdoms Sneeker "
And what does that tell me?
That a bunch of religious people who believe in Jesus.
Does that changes something?
No" lol.
for the wiki article to be worthy, it would need to be studied by independent means IE people of a completely different faith, not bible scolars, thats just laughable.
and from the same source,
"Nonchristian sources for Jesus
Historians have little other than Christian accounts on which to base a biography of Jesus. A reference to Jesus by Josephus is disputed. Greek accounts portray Jesus as the son of adultery, and Jewish accounts portray him as a magician, but these accounts tell us virtually nothing about Jesus as a historical figure" so you point is!.
if you wish to close your mind of course.
I have no beliefs period.
so you dont believe your god is watching over you, you dont believe your god resides in heaven, is your god downs stairs after all.
Geeser, that the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, wrote about Jesus confirms the historicity of His time on Earth.
If He didn't exist, having great impact in the Mediterranean region, then why would the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, bother to write about a "non-existent" figure? Logic 101.
If He didn't exist, having great impact in the Mediterranean region, then why would the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, bother to write about a "non-existent" figure? Logic 101.
This is pretty funny, bible thumpers using logic. Ironically it works here. Considering contemporary Roman and Greek historians wrote about him, we can reasonably assume he exhisted. Yes there is a possibility the wool got pulled over a whole bunch of peoples eyes. Considering the legacy of the catholic church, it is also reasonable to assume that some major lying occured in the formation of christianity in general.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
The Greeks, Romans and Jews wrote about the Roman "gods" too, and they are non-existent. So the technical answer as to why they might have written about him if he did not exist is: because other people believed he existed, and in discussing those other people a discussion of him was inevitable.
None of the Greek, Roman or Jewish sources can be 100% confirmed to have been written by those with first-hand knowledge of Jesus. Some of the sources often cited are from Tacitus and Josephus...but both wrote (and were born) well after Jesus had been crucified. Even St. Paul, who did live during the time of Jesus, is not thought to have met him personally.
The real reason to accept his existence on the historical record is twofold: (i) no ancient source (even those hostile to Christianity) ever suggested there was a controversy about his historicity and one imagines there would have been and (ii) Jesus has a rapid and far ranging effect on the region as his religion grew. It is hard to imagine that there would be such a rapid spread of Christianity if there were even a hint that Jesus was a fictional figure. (Though it is not entirely impossible.)
That said, it doesn't bother me if non-Christians prefer to reserve judgment on his historicity. I think, to be fair, that those people will be forced to reserve judgment on the historicity of many other figures as well (including the likes of Hammurabi, Alexander the Great, Siddhartha, Akhenaten, Moses and the Jewish patriarchs and many other ancient figures who we know mostly from what others have written about them without first-hand knowledge).
I can´t prove the existence of Jesus, all I know is the teachings that are linked to Him influence a vast ammount of people is a very good way, and that is good enough for me. Jesus teachings can´t have a negative influence in someone.
Someone may say this causes religious wars, but wars are not religious. Politicians have always used the beliefs of the people in order to turn them against a political enemy. But Jesus teachings are about peace, whoever says he beliefs in Jesus, and discriminate others, then he is not following the teachings of Jesus, and is just another ignorant hypocrite.
Someone may say this causes religious wars, but wars are not religious. Politicians have always used the beliefs of the people in order to turn them against a political enemy. But Jesus teachings are about peace, whoever says he beliefs in Jesus, and discriminate others, then he is not following the teachings of Jesus, and is just another ignorant hypocrite.
the greeks and romans, and jews wrote about satyrs, unicorns, cockatrices, so that must confirm there existence too.
If they didn't exist, having great impact in the Mediterranean region as they did, then why would the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, bother to write about "non-existent" figures? Logic 101.
Considering contemporary Roman and Greek historians wrote about these creatures, we can reasonably assume they existed, too.
The real reason to accept there existence on the historical record is twofold: (i) no ancient source (even those hostile to them) ever suggested there was a controversy about ther existence historically and one imagines there would have been and (ii) these creatures had a rapid and far ranging effect on the region as there belief grew. It is hard to imagine that there would be such a rapid spread of information in history regarding these creatures if there were even a hint they were fictional figures. (Though it is not entirely impossible.)
If they didn't exist, having great impact in the Mediterranean region as they did, then why would the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, bother to write about "non-existent" figures? Logic 101.
Considering contemporary Roman and Greek historians wrote about these creatures, we can reasonably assume they existed, too.
The real reason to accept there existence on the historical record is twofold: (i) no ancient source (even those hostile to them) ever suggested there was a controversy about ther existence historically and one imagines there would have been and (ii) these creatures had a rapid and far ranging effect on the region as there belief grew. It is hard to imagine that there would be such a rapid spread of information in history regarding these creatures if there were even a hint they were fictional figures. (Though it is not entirely impossible.)
That was just great geeser.
Back a few posts I listed the evidence...geeser said:
You may choose to disbelieve the evidence geeser, but to deny the existence of any evidence is an argument that's easy to refute.Diogenes' Dog said:
The gospels exist - they are evidence, Josephus's two references to Jesus exist (even if one was faked) - they are evidence, the Talmud reference exists - that is evidence, and all the other references are existing evidence for a historical person we call Jesus. You need to discredit or reinterpret them all to make a convincing case, which is why most "historians and Bible scholars" (not just Bible scholars) do not support it.
A much more convincing case would be to argue that Jesus did exist as one (or several) 1st centuary cult leaders who was martyred. He would likely have become (by 50 years after his death) a suitable figure for his followers to attribute special miraculous powers to, and as a mouthpiece for wisdom sayings, parables, stories and mythologies (e.g. pinched from Mithraism).
The legends of "King Arthur" are a known example - probably based on one (or several) shadowy Romano-British leader(s) who have since become consolidated into a single figure and gained mythic status.
I don't believe that's true about Jesus, but IMHO it's a much more convincing case than trying to expunge him from ever having existed at all.
Back to the question in hand: I think they probably didn't understand Jesus when he said it. Only after he reappeared 3 days after crucifixion did it suddenly make sense.
They seem to have had some difficulty recognising him (e.g. on the road to Emmeus) or being convinced he was physically real (e.g. Thomas). They also would have felt frightened, dispirited and disillusioned. I think this probably helped them to recognise him as the same person who had made the prophesy, and realise that the crucifixion was not a defeat (as they thought) but part of his strategy. It proved he'd known all along he'd be crucified, and known he would defeat death by rising again. I suspect they were awestruck!
all these have been refuted in the links I posted so I say again where is this evidence you have.
from the links I provided
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm
from the links I provided
then refute it.
from here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654
Only two of the canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, are alleged by tradition to have been written by eyewitnesses - but I will also address Mark and Luke.
First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eywitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus. All are written in the third person and none of the authors tell us anything about themselves. All of the traditional ascriptions of authorship come from 2nd century tradition.
refuted, not proof.
evidence for what, they ben refuted.
which has been done, the evidence points to it all being myth.
but that would be foolish, because it would be promoting a myth, as there is no evidence for a jesus person ever existing.
you cant expunge, that which already is non-existent.
Then why is Jesus "the talk of the town?"
That´s what I´m saying, and it has been 2000 years already.
Because it is human nature to be deluded by fallacies that include appeals to popularity. People find it easier to remain deluded than think for themselves or use reason in a critical mode. Indeed, magical thinking is found in every single culture and society on the planet from the Fulani tribes of West Africa to the Texas Rangers of professional baseball. The delusion that there exists the many gods of Christianity to absolve humanity of their "sins" and provide "everlasting life" is magical thought.
In other words: people are deluded.
I need to have something clarified by the theists on here...
From my perspective, there was no divinity regarding Jesus whatsoever. This means that Jesus (if he existed) was NOT the son of god, had no ability to perform legitimate miracles but still, with all this in mind, there is still room for somebody like Jesus to exist.
So a human jesus existed... so what? Why do people honestly think this guy is some kind of god? Have the theists on this board been seduced by story telling and myths? Because lets face it, the miracles, the feeding the thousands with a loaf of bread... I mean come on! You have lots of moderates who say that kind of stuff is allegorical or whatever... but yet they will still make the leap of worshipping him as some sort of god rather than a human figure.
From my perspective, there was no divinity regarding Jesus whatsoever. This means that Jesus (if he existed) was NOT the son of god, had no ability to perform legitimate miracles but still, with all this in mind, there is still room for somebody like Jesus to exist.
So a human jesus existed... so what? Why do people honestly think this guy is some kind of god? Have the theists on this board been seduced by story telling and myths? Because lets face it, the miracles, the feeding the thousands with a loaf of bread... I mean come on! You have lots of moderates who say that kind of stuff is allegorical or whatever... but yet they will still make the leap of worshipping him as some sort of god rather than a human figure.