PDA

View Full Version : can anyone please give me proof that Jesus Christ is real?



Pages : [1] 2

c.moore
August 12th, 2004, 05:35 AM
I have been dealing with this mythology teacher , and interviewing him on my tv and radio programs, and he gave incredible answers and question I don`t know to deal with them and if I let them be broadcast to the unbelievers and my audience it might prove to people there never was a real Christ and bible and religion is just a copy of pagan worship, and ancient customs.

So can anyone here please give me science evidence or other evidence that Christ lived outside the use of the bible or an religious form of information??

Please it must be logical evidence where can be traced or shown from people who have nothing to do with christianity and are not on any side just facts , and proofs, where no one can not say it is made up and please no stories, Just facts outside of the bible of Christ existance.

maybe their is bones or dust , clothes, or personal writting of Christ that can proven today he lived out side the bible or religious system.

maybe from the Egysiann side we can have evidence of the miracles of Moses or maybe someone can prove a millian people have really walked through the desert, and there is bones and writting of this all happening outside of the bible because non believers and other people have wrote about these biblical story and facts themselves to be trace to the bible as true facts.
Even the proof of mary existance if there is any please give me any links on this or proofs outside of the religion , and the bible on this please, it is so important.


This teacher has said there is no proof and no religion or scholar, priest , pastor, christian teachers can prove this out side of the bible, without using christian resources.


God Bless

c.moore
August 12th, 2004, 05:59 AM
This is a letter the teacher gave me so you can see where he is coming from, who also I am interviewing on tv and radio.

This is a loop that can go on forever and honestly it gets boring. I don't respect the bible, I don't see it as truth and I cannot be convinced, no matter how many scriptures I'm given that the bible is real because I know it is not.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

This scripture is nonsense, Christians use scripture all the time because they have nothing else, nothing real to stand on. Christians and Muslims say that anyone who doesn't believe in their lies are foolish. The only thing Christians see as proof and truth is biblical scripture, but the source, the bible, is false. The cross is foolishness and I'm not perishing. It is the Christian who reads this verse and don't even realize himself that is already perished, confused and frustrated. Scripture like the one presented keep you believing that anyone who talk sense to you is foolish. The moment you talk reality to a Christian they open the lie they call a mystery and start quoting scriptures that have nothing to do with reality. I'm going to start walking around with a Peter Pan script and start quoting out of it. Simple ideas like divinity etc. become the most complex for Christians to understand because all they know is biblical explanations and months can be spent on the definition on a simple word.
If you believe that I'm foolish for not believing in your Christ or cross etc., that's O.K. with me. The bible tells you to believe as a child, basically without a mind of your own. If I'm perceived as foolish to have my own mind and think as a mature man and not as a child believing in simple things like Santa Clause, Peter Pan and Jesus Christ, that's alright by me. "When I was a child I thought as a child and played as a child and did childish things, but when I became a man I put away my childish things." I don't believe in people walking on water, bringing the dead back to life, calling themselves the son of god and telling me I should give up my mind and take my power from myself and give my focus and money to some fabled so-called magician name Jesus Christ. These lies are for children. The believer accepts scriptures such as the ones presented as wisdom, not realizing that he is the one who foolishly accepts the cross, impossible miracles and the rest of the illogical lies as wisdom. A mature adult knows that such things like Christ, Peter Pan and the miracle of Santa Clause with rain dears flying through the air are nothing more than fantasy.
Please no more scriptures. Talk to me outside of that which has your mind blinded to reality. Do you really believe as a child in Moses and Jesus feeding thousands of people from one basket full of bread etc.? If so, I have a bridge called the Brooklyn Bridge I'd like to sell you.

Daniel50
August 12th, 2004, 10:41 AM
Jesus Christ is very much alive and real.
No doubt.

I was born and brought In a high caste Hindu background I had vision of Jesus Christ.

Aimiel
August 12th, 2004, 11:01 AM
C. Moore,

You have a choice. You can believe in Jesus, or you can ignore Him. He doesn't 'prove' Himself to outsiders. If He wanted to show Himself, so that people would believe in Him by sight, instead of by faith, He would have recorded His Ministry, and it would be broadcast on TV. He chose to live when there is no historical evidence (other than the words of men, written on paper) to 'prove' anything.

You have to believe in Him, in order to receive anything from Him. The proof that we have that He is Lord is the inward witness of The Holy Ghost, Who tells us that His Word is true. Those who don't hear Him, have refused Him, and will do so more and more, until their life is ended, and they are judged according to what they said. They obey thier lust. We must obey The Word of God.

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Nineveh
August 12th, 2004, 11:12 AM
Besides all of the eyewitness accounts, and the accuracy of the events? I don't think your teacher would believe even if a man was raised from the dead.

Aimiel
August 12th, 2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Besides all of the eyewitness accounts, and the accuracy of the events? I don't think your teacher would believe even if a man was raised from the dead. :darwinsm:

Clete
August 12th, 2004, 11:40 AM
c. moore,

Please ignore Aimiel! Post four may be the most idiotic thing I've seen anyone write on this subject.

You have however gotten a hold a real super duper idiot with this mythology teacher! His conditions are unreasonable and probably intentionally so.

Any extrabiblical evidence that exists will certainly have been seized upon and promoted by the Christian community for obvious reasons and conversely any such evidence would tend to be supressed or ignored by the nonchristian community so to demand that any evidence be presented by non christian sources is rediculous!

However, the evidence that you present does not have to look like it came from a overtly Christian source. What I would do if I were you is to get Evidence that Demands a Verdict (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785243631?v=glance) by Josh McDowell. The information in it is presented in a way that is very easy to quote and use in debates where citing sources might be necessary. It is not necessary to tell this ding dong teaher that you got this information from a Christian book. All the evidence presented can stand totally on its own and is independantly verifiable without ever having to reference Mr. McDowell's volume.

Another outstanding resource is Bob Enyart's Mount Moriah Video (http://www.kgov.com/store/video.html#mountmoriah). It would give you tons of ammo but your silly teacher wouldn't give it the time of day because it's obviously produced by a Christian.

Anyway, I hope this helps!

God Bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Daniel50
August 12th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Millions and millions Of Followers of Jesus christ.
By faith you can see Him.

csmuda
August 12th, 2004, 11:40 AM
The historians tell us there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth who was sentenced to death by the govenor of palestine; Pontias Pilot. Historians accept that much.

Rolf Ernst
August 12th, 2004, 11:56 AM
C. Moore--Our job is to testify of His existence, to bear witness of Him.
There are secular writings from that period which refer to Him, Josephus being one of them.

The encyclopedia Britannica says much about Him. Check it out. They will also list sources, or a bibliography.

That being said, however, we MUST remember that those kinds of testimonies will be in vain. No one can truly know He lived--and still does live--until He is pleased to manifest Himself to that person, and He does so through the gospel; through the Scripture, and the preaching of it.

A person may research other sources concerning Him until they begin to believe that He did indeed walk upon the earth, but that level of belief is not the kind of acknowledgement that makes Him REAL to people. That comes only by the power of the Holy Spirit. So my answer to a person who wanted evidence would be, "My job as His ambassador is to declare Him to you. If He is pleased to make Himself known to you, He will do so through His Word and our witness concerning Him. If not, anything else will be in vain.

Aimiel
August 12th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Please ignore Aimiel! Post four may be the most idiotic thing I've seen anyone write on this subject.What, specifically, if anything, did you find fault with in my post? Did you even read it? You provided references, but, beyond that, nothing. You didn't even consider the fact that these might not be readily available where Mr. Moore lives.

Clete
August 12th, 2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

What, specifically, if anything, did you find fault with in my post? Did you even read it?

"He doesn't 'prove' Himself to outsiders. If He wanted to show Himself, so that people would believe in Him by sight, instead of by faith, He would have recorded His Ministry, and it would be broadcast on TV. He chose to live when there is no historical evidence (other than the words of men, written on paper) to 'prove' anything."

All of the above is 100% false, mindless and ignorant.

"You have to believe in Him, in order to receive anything from Him. The proof that we have that He is Lord is the inward witness of The Holy Ghost, Who tells us that His Word is true."

Complete, idiotic, unfalsifiable nonsense!

"We must obey The Word of God.'

True but contradictory to the rest of your post.

All in all your post was a complete waste of energy both to write and too read and now to copy and rebutt.
Why would you even say such things? If nothing else it displays colossal ignorance of the very faith which you claim allegience to. If you weren't aware that such resources existed you should have said that or else just kept quiet and let someone who knows what they're talking about speak up. As it is, you make yourself look silly and discredit the Christian faith all at the same time. It just doesn't make any sense.



You provided references, but, beyond that, nothing. You didn't even consider the fact that these might not be readily available where Mr. Moore lives.
Okay! No pot smoking while on TOL!!!
I gave internet links to purchase points for both resources, if he lives on this planet, FedEx can get them to him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
August 12th, 2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

C. Moore--Our job is to testify of His existence, to bear witness of Him.
There are secular writings from that period which refer to Him, Josephus being one of them.

The encyclopedia Britannica says much about Him. Check it out. They will also list sources, or a bibliography.

That being said, however, we MUST remember that those kinds of testimonies will be in vain. No one can truly know He lived--and still does live--until He is pleased to manifest Himself to that person, and He does so through the gospel; through the Scripture, and the preaching of it.

A person may research other sources concerning Him until they begin to believe that He did indeed walk upon the earth, but that level of belief is not the kind of acknowledgement that makes Him REAL to people. That comes only by the power of the Holy Spirit. So my answer to a person who wanted evidence would be, "My job as His ambassador is to declare Him to you. If He is pleased to make Himself known to you, He will do so through His Word and our witness concerning Him. If not, anything else will be in vain.

This is going to be off topic so I'll keep it breif but Rolf, this is rank herecy or it is a meaningless thing to say.

Do you believe that any such person exists that He would not be pleased to show Himslef too?

If you answered yes, you are a heretic.
If you answered no, then your above statement is meaningless.

Faith is based upon substantive evidence, nothing less. To suggest otherwise is intellectually (and spirtually for that matter) insulting and unbiblical.

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Resting in Him,
Clete

keypurr
August 12th, 2004, 12:59 PM
C. Moore,
I was like you at one time in my life. I was about 19-20, and I was so confused with life that I doubted that the Bible was God's word. However a person came into my life and pointed out a few things to me. He started with the Second Chapter of Daniel. It wasn't long before my line of reason was passed and I knew that there is a Living God who loves us. Who else can declare the end from the beginning. Once I accepted that the Bible was from God, then the studies got serious to find out more about him. Knowledge builds faith and wisdom. It will not come overnight. But the search is well worth the time to find him. You can find him in the Bible. You will find the book interesting, confusing, sometime the pages look blank because you do not understand what your reading. That is what we all go through. But just look at the world, you know that something greater than MAN has been at work. For instance, who do you know that can make dirt? Teach a bird to fly? There is a God, and he has reveled himself to us in his Bible.
Some folks have never searched in the right places to find him, I think your teacher is one of them. Believe me, he is real and he loves you.
Yours in Christ, Keypurr (Bob)

Clete
August 12th, 2004, 01:39 PM
keyperr,

c. moore is a christian, has been for a long time.

freelight
August 12th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Hi c.moore and all,


Whether Jesus actually lived on earth as a historical figure is certainly open for debate. I have read a few sources outside of christendom.....supposedley from the Talmud and Josephus,...but the latter I have heard is likely an interpolation added by a zealous christian. This remains to be a wonderful area of research.

Your teacher is correct in that christians primarily have their NT and their 'faith' in it and the Christ it represents (as their whle compendium of 'proof').
As far as Jesus being a living reality.....this appears to be an individual faith-experience. It does all fall back on belief/faith/trust.
Whether we can find objective substancial evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure...does not appear to effect faith in him....as he can still inspire as a 'mythological Christ'....on a subjective level. For some however.....historical proof is required.....to others it is not more important than the mythos of the Christ....that serves to inspire, illumine and teach allegorical truths.

One must also research whether he himself believes in Jesus because he was taught to as a cultural/religious conditioning - this also includes worship of scripture as being 'true'(which includes

freelight
August 12th, 2004, 01:44 PM
Hi c.moore and all,


Whether Jesus actually lived on earth as a historical figure is certainly open for debate. I have read a few sources outside of christendom.....supposedley from the Talmud and Josephus,...but the latter I have heard is likely an interpolation added by a zealous christian. This remains to be a wonderful area of research.

Your teacher is correct in that christians primarily have their NT and their 'faith' in it and the Christ it represents (as their whole compendium of 'proof').
As far as Jesus being a living reality.....this appears to be an individual faith-experience. It does all fall back on belief/faith/trust.
Whether we can find objective substancial evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure...does not appear to effect faith in him....as he can still inspire as a 'mythological Christ'....on a subjective level. For some however.....historical proof is required.....to others it is not more important than the mythos of the Christ....that serves to inspire, illumine and teach allegorical truths.

One must also research whether he himself believes in Jesus because he was taught to as a cultural/religious conditioning - this also includes worship of scripture as being 'true'(which includes all its 'stories'). What if the meaning and value we place on these is self-imposed? Lots to explore here.

With faith there is only the substance of what is hoped for.....that being the evidence of a potential/actual reality that is invisible. Faith calls one to move beyond the sense(even intellectual) realm and seize/apprehend a spirit-reality/dimension of being. A person who says, 'Jesus is real to me' is speaking either by belief, experience or both...but its confirmation is always subjective based upon indidivual belief.

One may want to consider what has conditioned your teachers 'beliefs' and makes them different from your 'beliefs'(research the conditionings). Asides from any obejective historical evidence.....we are stark naked only with our beliefs/values/experience.



paul

Aimiel
August 12th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

"He doesn't 'prove' Himself to outsiders. If He wanted to show Himself, so that people would believe in Him by sight, instead of by faith, He would have recorded His Ministry, and it would be broadcast on TV. He chose to live when there is no historical evidence (other than the words of men, written on paper) to 'prove' anything."

All of the above is 100% false, mindless and ignorant.No, it isn't; your reply is, though. Why do you think that God doesn't 'show' Himself to the un-believers, so that they will know that He is God?
"You have to believe in Him, in order to receive anything from Him. The proof that we have that He is Lord is the inward witness of The Holy Ghost, Who tells us that His Word is true."

Complete, idiotic, unfalsifiable nonsense!If it really were as 'idiotic' as you pretend, you might be able to prove that it is false. I can prove that it is, indeed, quite true:

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Will He give anything to someone who is not pleasing to Him? He rewards faith, not doubt.

As to the second part of your quote of me...

The fact that we (believers) believe that The Word of God is true, every bit of it, is proof enough for me that it takes The Holy Ghost, giving us the truth, down on the inside of us.

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Are you getting the idea that The Holy Spirit is necessary, in order for anyone to hear and to believe The Truth? That is the case. We have a more sure word of prophecy than the eyewitnesses that heard The Voice from Heaven say, "This is My Beloved Son..." and there is no greater word than His.[/QUOTE]All in all your post was a complete waste of energy both to write and too read and now to copy and rebutt.[/QUOTE]Apparently you suffer from some type of disease which makes you tire too easily, and whine too much. Maybe you should be given a pacifier so that you can take a little 'nappy.'
Why would you even say such things?Because it is truth.
If nothing else it displays colossal ignorance of the very faith which you claim allegience to. I believe you've done a far greater job of doing this than anyone I've ever seen.
If you weren't aware that such resources existed you should have said that or else just kept quiet and let someone who knows what they're talking about speak up.Go for it. I'm not saying you shouldn't give resources, but maybe asking for some content is a bit of a stretch for your minature grey matter.

Aimiel
August 12th, 2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

Once I accepted that the Bible was from God, then the studies got serious to find out more about him. Knowledge builds faith and wisdom. It will not come overnight. But the search is well worth the time to find him. Bob,

Nice post. I like the attitude. I also like what John Osteen was fond of saying:

Great it is, to stand in youth, and dream a dream. But, greater still, to fight life through, and stand at the end and say, "The dream was true."

Poly
August 12th, 2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel


Are you getting the idea that The Holy Spirit is necessary, in order for anyone to hear and to believe The Truth? That is the case. We have a more sure word of prophecy than the eyewitnesses that heard The Voice from Heaven say, "This is My Beloved Son..." and there is no greater word than His
There's nothing wrong with physical evidence in proving God. You make it sound as though we can't have this evidence and also be led by the Holy Spirit. I think God likes the evidence that points to Him.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

And the verse that was quoted earlier...
Hebrews 1:11
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Aimiel
August 12th, 2004, 02:44 PM
I don't think that there is one piece of conclusive emperical evidence which proves the existence of God. I believe He would have left at least one, if He wanted men to come to Him on that 'bunny-trail.' He chose faith. Those who take Him at His Word get all of Him. Those who don't, just don't get Him at all.

Knight
August 12th, 2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel
He chose faith. But not blind faith.

Aimiel
August 12th, 2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Knight

But not blind faith. What do you mean?

Granite
August 12th, 2004, 03:00 PM
Moore,

There is no archeological evidence that I'm aware of "proving" Christ's existence. The jury's still out when it comes to the Jesus Box and Turin Shroud. Josephus's references to Jesus are suspected by some to be Christian additions. When the experts disagree, and they always disagree, you're right back where you started.

Proof is, of course, not necessary to be a Christian.

Turbo
August 12th, 2004, 03:04 PM
granite1010, I know you have your disagreements with Enyart, but I highly recommend you watch his Mt. Moriah (http://www.kgov.com/store/video.html#mountmoriah) video. If you don't like it, you can get a refund.

Crow
August 12th, 2004, 03:29 PM
c.moore,

Perhaps this (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/) might help a little.

Mustard Seed
August 12th, 2004, 04:01 PM
The following was taken from a book that was written at the same time as the Bible on an entirely different continent. "Por la boca de doc o tres testigos se establecera todo asunto". You see c.moore the reason the mythology teacher can pull such stuff out of history is because even Adam and Eve were taught about Christ and his comming. The entire history of man has been filled to the brim with sects that at some point in their history have broken from the true religion or have borrowed much of their philosophies from it. Adam followed God and hence had to follow Christ. I know the majority of you have regected the following before and I in all honesty don't expect you to receive it with any more warmth. But following your request, c.moore, I am providing the following excerpt--


Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment–seat of Christ.


TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUN.

(Book of Mormon | Preface Title Page:2)


Just as I've pointed out in my conversations with ThePhy the acceptance of a certain 'reason' and 'logic' promoted by ThePhy and others as ruling against Mormonism brings all religions under condemnation. One of the previous posters was correct in the aprisal that the standards the mythology teacher set are to broad. I would hope some honest person would admit this not only on what has been said by the mythology teacher but by the likes of ThePhy.

Mustard Seed
August 12th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

What do you mean?

I mean not to steal anyones thunder but I think this may portray, more or less, what Knight appears to be trying to say to Aimiel with regard to the role of reason and argument in conjunction with faith.

Taken from

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/WhyApologetics.pdf



The English author,Austin Farrer put it this way:

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for
the hope that is in you.?


In other words, while reason and logic are not to trump faith to exercise, as it's called, 'blind faith' (I would dispute such as being able to be called faith) is not wise a wise course nor one, that I believe, can ever lead to salvation.

Crow
August 12th, 2004, 04:17 PM
You might try these (http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm), c.moore.

Knight
August 12th, 2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

What do you mean? Generally speaking... blind faith is for idiots!

God doesn't expect us to have blind faith.

He expects us to have faith based the evidence He has given us.

Aimiel.....
Does God's word (the Bible) play a vital role in our faith?

Sozo
August 12th, 2004, 05:22 PM
:sozo: Announcing:

Battle Royale IX



Clete

vs

Aimiel




in

WHACK-AI-MIEL


:Clete:

:aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel: :aimiel:

Knight
August 12th, 2004, 05:23 PM
:chuckle:

Crow
August 12th, 2004, 05:33 PM
:darwinsm:

c.moore
August 12th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

c. moore,

Please ignore Aimiel! Post four may be the most idiotic thing I've seen anyone write on this subject.

You have however gotten a hold a real super duper idiot with this mythology teacher! His conditions are unreasonable and probably intentionally so.

Any extrabiblical evidence that exists will certainly have been seized upon and promoted by the Christian community for obvious reasons and conversely any such evidence would tend to be supressed or ignored by the nonchristian community so to demand that any evidence be presented by non christian sources is rediculous!

However, the evidence that you present does not have to look like it came from a overtly Christian source. What I would do if I were you is to get Evidence that Demands a Verdict (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785243631?v=glance) by Josh McDowell. The information in it is presented in a way that is very easy to quote and use in debates where citing sources might be necessary. It is not necessary to tell this ding dong teaher that you got this information from a Christian book. All the evidence presented can stand totally on its own and is independantly verifiable without ever having to reference Mr. McDowell's volume.

Another outstanding resource is Bob Enyart's Mount Moriah Video (http://www.kgov.com/store/video.html#mountmoriah). It would give you tons of ammo but your silly teacher wouldn't give it the time of day because it's obviously produced by a Christian.

Anyway, I hope this helps!

God Bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

I did get the book the case of Christ, I am still reading it.

c.moore
August 12th, 2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

C. Moore--Our job is to testify of His existence, to bear witness of Him.
There are secular writings from that period which refer to Him, Josephus being one of them.

The encyclopedia Britannica says much about Him. Check it out. They will also list sources, or a bibliography.

That being said, however, we MUST remember that those kinds of testimonies will be in vain. No one can truly know He lived--and still does live--until He is pleased to manifest Himself to that person, and He does so through the gospel; through the Scripture, and the preaching of it.

A person may research other sources concerning Him until they begin to believe that He did indeed walk upon the earth, but that level of belief is not the kind of acknowledgement that makes Him REAL to people. That comes only by the power of the Holy Spirit. So my answer to a person who wanted evidence would be, "My job as His ambassador is to declare Him to you. If He is pleased to make Himself known to you, He will do so through His Word and our witness concerning Him. If not, anything else will be in vain.

this is what he wrote about Josephus.

Another famous historian of the period was Flavius Josephus, who lived from around 37AD to 97 AD. (Look in the INDEX of The Christ Conspiracy and find the pages about Josephus’ works. See what she says). In his "Antiquities" he wrote two passages of interest, the first referring to James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." (20:9). The second reference is more explicit,


"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
“ Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.?
Our surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 9th century. However there are citations in other writers of antiquity.
The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius writing in about A.D. 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form. So it is clear that this passage existed in manuscripts of the Antiquities of the Jews at that time.
However, it is significant that Origen writing in about A.D. 240, fails to mention it, even though he does mention the less significant reference to Jesus as brother of James that occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (book 20, ch. 9). This has given rise to the suggestion that the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the earliest copies, or did not exist in that form.
Those historians disposed to reject the passage suggest that passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and that the thread of continuity is interrupted by this passage. The passage 3.3 also is supposed to fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorf, 2002. Consequently these historians dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation. It is also argued that 'He was [the] Christ.' can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian.

the theologian Origen (about 185-254 AD) said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah (Contra Celsum, 1:47). Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D., says of this text, " Today there's a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars (religious sources. Unreliable) that the passage as a whole is authentic

Another writer, from around 52 AD, was Thallus. None of his works are extant, but some fragments are preserved by other writers. One was Julius Africanus, who wrote about 221(unreliable. Julius Africanus is writing about what about Thallus said 200 years later. How can anyone trust that as proof. Where are these origional writings of Thallus. Thallus works have been tampered with by Christians. Unreliable). He says:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." (Extant Writings, 18 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers) (Nowhere in the ancient world did anyone record an eclipse at this time except here and in the bible? Strange).

Africanus identifies this darkness (or eclipse) with the darkness surrounding Christ's death.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator, wrote to the Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and said of Christians:

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food-but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." (Letters, 10:96).
(This is propaganda rubbish that was written 112 years after by a so-called Christian writer).
This passage confirms that early Christians worshipped Christ as God, rather than having the "Godhood" of Christ added as legend at a later date.

The Talmud also records several references of Jesus. The ones of importance were compiled between 70 and 200 AD, during the so-called Tannatic Period. The most significant text is Sanhedrian 43a:

"One the eve of Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!" (Babylonian Talmud) (This is not Jesus that they’re talking about, besides was Jesus nailed to a cross or hanged? If he lived and was hanged then the Bible has it wrong, because the Bible claims that he was nailed to the cross. “For the message of the CROSS is follishness to those who are perishing…?
It was a practice of the Jews as it was in that part of the world to have a man representing the man-god or a sheep sacrificed for the sins of the people at the end of the year or in times of great danger. They believed that their sins would perish with the dead animal or man. The name was usually Jeoud or Yeshu etc..
“Among the Semites of Western Asia the king, in a time of national danger, sometimes gave his own son to die as a sacrifice for the people. Thus Philo of Byblus, in his work on the Jews, says: ‘It was an ancient custom in a crisis of great danger that the ruler of a city or nation should give his beloved son to die for the whole people, as a ransom offered to the avenging demons; and the children thus offered were slain with mystic rites. So Cronus, whom the Phonenicians called Israel, being king of the land and having an only-begotten son called Jeoud (for in the Phoenician tongue Jeoud signifies “only begotten?), dressed him in royal robes and sacrificed him upon an alter in a time of war, when the country was in great danger from the enemy.’ When the king of Moab was besieged by the Israelites and hard beset, he took his eldest son, who should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall.?(James Frazer, The Golden Bough).

This passage confirms the crucifixion, the time it occurred, and the fact that Jesus was accused of sorcery in regards to His miracles.

Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian, wrote to his son Serapion sometime between the late first and early third century and said:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samon gain from burning Pythagorans? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given." (British Museum, Syriac ms, add. 14, 658; cited in Habermas, 200).(nonsense)

Besides these manuscripts, there are many other hinted at by other manuscripts. The Acts of Pontius Pilate are refereed to by Justin Martyr in 150(150 is 150 years too late), and by Tertullian in 200. Justin Martyr wrote:

"And the _expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in his hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon his vesture, and they that crucified him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain from the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." (First Apology, 35).

Obviously, Martyr would not have referred to a book that didn't exist, or to a passage that didn't exist in a book, since he was writing a defense of Christ.

Phlegon's Chronicles are also referred to. He is cited by Origen (4:455) as saying, "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails." He also mentioned "the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquake which took place" (Origen, Contra Celsus, 14). Julius Africanus confirms the same passages.(These people lived too late to have any first hand knowledge of a Jesus, therefore not credible).

The resulting, non-biblical passages show us the following points, as summarized by Norman Geisler:

"(1) Jesus was from Nazareth; (2) he lived a wise and virtuous life; (3) he was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king; (4) he was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later; (5) his enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called 'sorcery'; (6) his small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome; (7) his disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshipped Christ as Divine. This picture confirms the view of Christ presented in the New Testament Gospels." (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics). (These a are all typical Cristian arguments. Unreal).

c.moore
August 12th, 2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by freelight

Hi c.moore and all,


Whether Jesus actually lived on earth as a historical figure is certainly open for debate. I have read a few sources outside of christendom.....supposedley from the Talmud and Josephus,...but the latter I have heard is likely an interpolation added by a zealous christian. This remains to be a wonderful area of research.

Your teacher is correct in that christians primarily have their NT and their 'faith' in it and the Christ it represents (as their whole compendium of 'proof').
As far as Jesus being a living reality.....this appears to be an individual faith-experience. It does all fall back on belief/faith/trust.
Whether we can find objective substancial evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure...does not appear to effect faith in him....as he can still inspire as a 'mythological Christ'....on a subjective level. For some however.....historical proof is required.....to others it is not more important than the mythos of the Christ....that serves to inspire, illumine and teach allegorical truths.

One must also research whether he himself believes in Jesus because he was taught to as a cultural/religious conditioning - this also includes worship of scripture as being 'true'(which includes all its 'stories'). What if the meaning and value we place on these is self-imposed? Lots to explore here.

With faith there is only the substance of what is hoped for.....that being the evidence of a potential/actual reality that is invisible. Faith calls one to move beyond the sense(even intellectual) realm and seize/apprehend a spirit-reality/dimension of being. A person who says, 'Jesus is real to me' is speaking either by belief, experience or both...but its confirmation is always subjective based upon indidivual belief.

One may want to consider what has conditioned your teachers 'beliefs' and makes them different from your 'beliefs'(research the conditionings). Asides from any obejective historical evidence.....we are stark naked only with our beliefs/values/experience.



paul

This is the problem he had no belief system.

he only goes by the knowing system and facts and proofs.

he mention about knowing is better than believing, and if you know something there is no need for believing.

what do you think about that?

c.moore
August 12th, 2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Moore,

There is no archeological evidence that I'm aware of "proving" Christ's existence. The jury's still out when it comes to the Jesus Box and Turin Shroud. Josephus's references to Jesus are suspected by some to be Christian additions. When the experts disagree, and they always disagree, you're right back where you started.

Proof is, of course, not necessary to be a Christian.


No archeological evidence ???

so the teacher is again correct??

No historic history proving he existed either??

Aagin the teacher is correct???

What up here???:confused: :think:

Mustard Seed
August 12th, 2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by c.moore

This is the problem he had no belief system.

he only goes by the knowing system and facts and proofs.

he mention about knowing is better than believing, and if you know something there is no need for believing.

what do you think about that?


Everyone has a belief system whether or not they conceed such. The very foundations of any real applications of science or reason demands assumptions be made concerning the systems which are being analyzed.

Every scientist, philosopher etc. that makes any progress does so by making many assumptions about the system they are in. The primary difference I see is that those in the realm of recognized faith generaly are more apt to recognize the dogmas on which their beliefs rest. Dogmas are intrinsic to every system of analyzing the world even if it claims the objectivity some of those systems do.

Mustard Seed
August 12th, 2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by c.moore

No archeological evidence ???

so the teacher is again correct??

No historic history proving he existed either??

Aagin the teacher is correct???

What up here???:confused: :think:

There is evidence (refering here to emperical evidence, that which can be measured in a scientific materical way) that Christ lived. However such 'evidence' for the truthfulness of his claims on the playing field that the mythology teacher is suggesting doesn't exist. That's part of the problem is that the 'teacher' is basing their conclusions only on the empirical/quantifiable evidence. There is not (to my knowledge anyway) any such evidence that can be presented. You cannot have a test for the existence of God that will ever stand up to those standards because God's nature surpasses that which is quantifiable and conceivable on the level we are at in our present state.

God can talk to us but there is no way that we can prove that such has occured to others (at least not presently) any and all points we try and present as evidence can be dismissed on the basis that the person we are trying to convince simply will not see any of it as evidence of what we propose.

Mustard Seed
August 12th, 2004, 06:32 PM
There is no PROOF for global warming.

There is no PROOF that DDT was ever thinning eggshells.

c.moore most things do not have proof. Proof is relative to the individual receiving the information. If you have been convinced of something, regardless of whether or not it is true, you have had it, for the time, proven to you. We decide what is and is not proof for us. If you have some one who is convinced that they are, like in the popular movie the Matrix, traped inside some all encompasing computer simulation, no amount of proof is going to disuade them from their belief if they are not going to allow such.

Clete
August 12th, 2004, 06:38 PM
c. moore,

A Case for Christ is an excellent book. Good choice!

Another EXCELLENT book that will not give physical evidence but will equip you with outstanding phylosophical and logical arguments for the existence of God is "Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi Zacharias. In fact pretty much everything he's ever written would be a great resource.

Another source for terrific arguments for the existence of God is right here on TOL. The Battle Royale between Bob Enyart and Zakath is simply the best debate on the issue I have ever seen, and I haven't even read it all!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
August 12th, 2004, 06:48 PM
Aimiel,

As a corollary to the question asked by Knight allow me to ask you a question that I asked you almost a year ago.

If I told you that I got a visit in the spirit from Jesus Himself and He told me that by His sovereign right, He has decided to change the rules so that now everything about the gospel is the same except that from now on, no one will be saved except on every third Thursday of the month and only after 7:03pm local time.

How would you know I was lying?

Resting in Him,
Clete

firechyld
August 12th, 2004, 09:57 PM
c.moore, the Mythological Jesus vs Historical Jesus debate is a huge one that's been going on for a long time. There's no easy answer.

In short... no, there is no empirical evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus. It cannot (at this time) be proven that the man ever lived, much less performed the deeds credited to him.

That said, there is also not enough evidence or even lack thereof to definitely state that the historical Jesus didn't exist. At this point in time, the jury is still out, and will remain out until such time as proof for either stance is discovered.

The question isn't really "Can we prove that Jesus existed?"... it's "Does the fact that we can't prove his existence matter to modern Christians?" Does it alter your beliefs that you can't point to archaeological evidence, or are you simply looking for something to convert another individual? Bear in mind that proof of historical Jesus, were it to be found, doesn't necessarily prove that he was any of the things Christians believe him to be.

As for Moses, there's even less evidence of him. The Egyptians have no record of anything even vaguely resembling the Exodus. *shrug* Make of that what you will...

Aimiel
August 13th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Mustard Seed

In other words, while reason and logic are not to trump faith to exercise, as it's called, 'blind faith' (I would dispute such as being able to be called faith) is not wise a wise course nor one, that I believe, can ever lead to salvation. I don't believe that I have, or was promoting such 'blind' faith.

Aimiel
August 13th, 2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Knight

Generally speaking... blind faith is for idiots!Agreed.
God doesn't expect us to have blind faith.I believe that's a given.
He expects us to have faith based the evidence He has given us.This is where you have to admit that either you believe or you don't. Those who don't accept that The Word of God is inspired by God, true or relevant don't 'see' the evidence that weighs so heavily upon our hearts.
Does God's word (the Bible) play a vital role in our faith? Of course it does, it is the foundation. We take Him at His Word, and trust that He is True, though every man who ever lived (except, of course, Jesus) might have been a liar.

Knight
August 13th, 2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel
Of course it does, it is the foundation. We take Him at His Word, and trust that He is True, though every man who ever lived (except, of course, Jesus) might have been a liar. OK... well I guess I misunderstood your earlier point.

Aimiel
August 13th, 2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

If I told you that I got a visit in the spirit from Jesus Himself and He told me that by His sovereign right, He has decided to change the rules so that now everything about the gospel is the same except that from now on, no one will be saved except on every third Thursday of the month and only after 7:03pm local time.

How would you know I was lying?The same way I refuted your other 'points' in this thread, The Word of God, which doesn't change, and will abide forever: He said that He watches over His Word to perform it, and that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved, not whosoever believes upon certain days ONLY. Also, I would suggest that you need to exercise better discernment, because the spirit that spoke to you was an evil spirit, pretending to be The Lord.

Rolf Ernst
August 13th, 2004, 11:17 AM
Clete--your post #13: I am sorry about your not understanding straight Bible doctrine, Clete. I know it must be difficult to always be running into verses which do not fit in with your misconceptions of Scripture; nevertheless you can't make those troublesome verses disappear. It is forever established in heaven that "no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Mt.11:27

There are many other texts which teach the same thing both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, but I know it would be fruitless to spend more time with you. People of the "openess" persuasion are notorious for ignoring verses. They are content to hold a view of scripture which leaves many texts in tension with one another. We Reformed people find that unacceptable. Thanks for calling me a heretic. I would not want to be identified with your doctrines.

Aimiel
August 13th, 2004, 11:22 AM
Amen Rolf.

Clete
August 13th, 2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--your post #13: I am sorry about your not understanding straight Bible doctrine, Clete. I know it must be difficult to always be running into verses which do not fit in with your misconceptions of Scripture; nevertheless you can't make those troublesome verses disappear. It is forever established in heaven that "no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Mt.11:27

There are many other texts which teach the same thing both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, but I know it would be fruitless to spend more time with you. People of the "openess" persuasion are notorious for ignoring verses. They are content to hold a view of scripture which leaves many texts in tension with one another. We Reformed people find that unacceptable. Thanks for calling me a heretic. I would not want to be identified with your doctrines.

Both you and Aimiel have no business on a board where serious discussions of theology take place. You are not only both intellectually dishonest and incapable of reading but are also a straight up liar.

The only reason to react this way to what I said is because you know you have no hope in defeating me in an honest debate. Further, I have never, nor will I ever intentionally ignore any Scripture nor do you have any evidence to the contrary, you are a liar and a hypocrite. For it is you who profane God with your disgusting theology that makes God the author of evil, and more than that you are proud of it! While, all the while burying your head in the sand and ignoring verse after verse after verse that shows the contrary.

Further still, I never called you a heretic. I was very careful to word my post in such a way as to encourage you to clarify yourself but you apparently can't read well enough to have detected that. I said IF and THEN and posted 2 possibilities. I of course can assume which you chose but that is beside the point. If you were half a man you would simply have answered the question and defended your position. As it is, you have proven yourself to be a small minded child that should spend more time in Sunday School class being read to about Noah’s ark and watching Veggi Tale cartoons.
If you decide to grow up and act your age, I'd still be interested to know whether you think any such person exists that Jesus does not want to reveal himself to? And why you would not consider the Bible itself as His having revealed Himself to everyone, or at least to everyone who can either read or be read to?

And Aimiel, what the hell are you doing agreeing with Rolf when you don't even believe that the Bible is the standard of truth? What would you care if I ignored Bible verses or not? Shouldn't I follow the leading of the Spirit within? As far as you are concerned if it feels right it is right. That makes me want to puke!

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

Knight
August 13th, 2004, 01:40 PM
:Clete:

Turbo
August 13th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

The Egyptians have no record of anything even vaguely resembling the Exodus. *shrug* Make of that what you will... I take it you've never heard of the Ipuwer papyrus (http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm). Even the unbeliever who wrote the preface on the page linked cannot deny the similarities between this Egyptian account and the Exodus account:

Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make.
I submit that this author is the one making a great leap of faith.




Comparing the two accounts:
The Ten Plagues - Live From Egypt (http://www.ohr.org.il/yhiy/article.php/838)

add yasaf
August 13th, 2004, 03:52 PM
c. moore you can look here for quotes from secular authors - http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html


and also get the book - a Biblical History of Israel, found here - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664220908/102-4581760-7637750?v=glance

ButcherABC
August 13th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I take it you've never heard of the Ipuwer papyrus (http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm). Even the unbeliever who wrote the preface on the page linked cannot deny the similarities between this Egyptian account and the Exodus account:



Before I read this document, I want an answer to the following. Do you judge this papyrus as similar to the Exodus by the same standard Christians use when they deny similarities between Christian beliefs and those of other religions of the time, and the same standard by which they deny similarities between the tale of Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh? IOW, are you using a double standard in claiming this papyrus as evidence for the Exodus?

Crow
August 14th, 2004, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Knight

:Clete:

Suits him, doesn't it?

Maybe it was predestined! :bannana:

wait a minute......:noid:

predestined? :think:

.......:shocked:

Daniel50
August 14th, 2004, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Crow

Suits him, doesn't it?

Maybe it was predestined! :bannana:

wait a minute......:noid:

predestined? :think:

.......:shocked:



:jump:

c.moore
August 14th, 2004, 03:50 AM
firechyld

In short... no, there is no empirical evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus. It cannot (at this time) be proven that the man ever lived, much less performed the deeds credited to him.

That said, there is also not enough evidence or even lack thereof to definitely state that the historical Jesus didn't exist. At this point in time, the jury is still out, and will remain out until such time as proof for either stance is discovered.



Quote :

So I guess my question is answer , the unbelievers, and mythology teacher has a greater range of evidence that Jesus never existed, and can be a fairy tale or just made up from other pagan religion and pre ancient time story`s which was never true including the story of Adam and Eve.

Turbo
August 14th, 2004, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

So I guess my question is answer , the unbelievers, and mythology teacher has a greater range of evidence that Jesus never existed, and can be a fairy tale or just made up from other pagan religion and pre ancient time story`s which was never true including the story of Adam and Eve. Why are you ignoring the evidence presented on this thread? Just because firechyld says there is no evidence doesn't make it so.

Mustard Seed
August 14th, 2004, 04:00 PM
c.moore

A way of looking at the whole thing is similar to what the title of one of the books that was mentioned in this thread implies (I don't exactly remeber the title off hand but it has something to do with demanding an answer/verdict) I've mentioned something on the same not in one of my recent threads. If Jesus Christ and his story, or the Bible in general, were not real then there's a TON of explaining to be done for the impact etc. I likened it to an example given by Hugh Nibley in one of his books. He talks about the recent controversy over William Shakespear and how many are questioning his legitimacy as the author of all those works. Now whether it was one man that wrote those plays sonnets etc or if it was a group of men it was still an INCREDIBLE WORK. Essentially if it was miraculous and unbelievable for him to have fashioned those works then what makes it any less unbelievable that a seceret society of intellects that lived in the same area did it? Either scenerio you have to deal with that which was produced. Regardless of the source of the Bible or it's stories those who call it merely a fabel have so much explaining to do that it may actually complicate, and render harder to explain, the existance of the Bible or the history of Jesus Christ.

c.moore
August 14th, 2004, 05:50 PM
So the facts is still there is no real logical or historical proof out side the bible??

c.moore
August 14th, 2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Why are you ignoring the evidence presented on this thread? Just because firechyld says there is no evidence doesn't make it so.

If there was evidence out side of the bible I could go and collect the million dollar question, and give the half to the church.

Clete
August 14th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by c.moore

If there was evidence out side of the bible I could go and collect the million dollar question, and give the half to the church.

There is evidence! Tons of it! Whole mountains of it! That's what I and others here have been trying to tell you! Do you want it or not? Why ask for the info if your going to ignore it when it handed to you on a silver platter? I don't get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

firechyld
August 14th, 2004, 09:02 PM
Turbo


I take it you've never heard of the Ipuwer papyrus. Even the unbeliever who wrote the preface on the page linked cannot deny the similarities between this Egyptian account and the Exodus account:

I have actually heard of that papyrus... one of my lecturers is a renowned expert in papyri reading, so my religious studies course last semester was a little heavy on that area. :)

I left it out because of the debate still raging in the academic community regarding it, which wasn't entirely fair of me... it is technically evidence, regarless of controversy.

I'll revise my statement to "next to nothing, excluding the Ipuwer papyrus." ;)

c.moore...


So I guess my question is answer , the unbelievers, and mythology teacher has a greater range of evidence that Jesus never existed, and can be a fairy tale or just made up from other pagan religion and pre ancient

Well, technically absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

That said, does it really matter? If you manage to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus existed, the question becomes whether or not he was actually the being Christians believe him to be.

*shrug* Short of being there, you can't prove everything about Jesus, if he in fact existed. And if there's even one thing that you cannot prove, that's the thing that you'll be asked to prove.

Stop stressing over it.

c.moore
August 15th, 2004, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

There is evidence! Tons of it! Whole mountains of it! That's what I and others here have been trying to tell you! Do you want it or not? Why ask for the info if your going to ignore it when it handed to you on a silver platter? I don't get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ok , I pass them onto the teacher all these evidence.

So tell me again where is the proof , maybe i can see it in the Egysian culture as well , and all the story of Moses , and evidence that so many people travel through the desert, and there is tons of historcal facts out side of the bible , or even abdout Adam and eve existance, and about the characters in the bible as Paul, and Peter , and Mary.

Maybe you have the eveidence of the bone or dust of Virgin Mary sence she was not resurrected.

c.moore
August 15th, 2004, 03:24 AM
firechyld


It is like trying to find my roots.

I must accept the fact of slavery, and maybe I must understand the fact where slavery came from, and as doing this I found alot of slavery ,and wars, massave murderings and brutal killings and mostly with religions, and christians.

It even shown me the warrior attitiude and back gound of christianity and other religions, wowww, i wounder where was the love.

c.moore
August 15th, 2004, 03:47 AM
The pagan fertility goddess Oestre was linked to the resurrection, and her feast day became known as Easter.

Does anyone know if this is where the people say the Jesus story began with the goddess, including the death and burial , resurrection ???

This teacher also said the stars have many storys and many of the story`s in the bible came from the stars worshipers or is astrological .

c.moore
August 15th, 2004, 05:36 AM
The teacher said many christian try to use evidence of a Jewish man called Josephus.

the teacher responce and research on this was this:

Another famous historian of the period was Flavius Josephus, who lived from around 37AD to 97 AD. (Look in the INDEX of The Christ Conspiracy and find the pages about Josephus’ works. See what she says). In his "Antiquities" he wrote two passages of interest, the first referring to James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." (20:9). The second reference is more explicit,


"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
“ Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.?
Our surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 9th century. However there are citations in other writers of antiquity.
The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius writing in about A.D. 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form. So it is clear that this passage existed in manuscripts of the Antiquities of the Jews at that time.
However, it is significant that Origen writing in about A.D. 240, fails to mention it, even though he does mention the less significant reference to Jesus as brother of James that occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (book 20, ch. 9). This has given rise to the suggestion that the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the earliest copies, or did not exist in that form.
Those historians disposed to reject the passage suggest that passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and that the thread of continuity is interrupted by this passage. The passage 3.3 also is supposed to fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by K. H. Rengstorf, 2002. Consequently these historians dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation. It is also argued that 'He was [the] Christ.' can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian.

the theologian Origen (about 185-254 AD) said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah (Contra Celsum, 1:47). Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D., says of this text, " Today there's a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars (religious sources. Unreliable) that the passage as a whole is authentic

Another writer, from around 52 AD, was Thallus. None of his works are extant, but some fragments are preserved by other writers. One was Julius Africanus, who wrote about 221(unreliable. Julius Africanus is writing about what about Thallus said 200 years later. How can anyone trust that as proof. Where are these origional writings of Thallus. Thallus works have been tampered with by Christians. Unreliable). He says:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." (Extant Writings, 18 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers) (Nowhere in the ancient world did anyone record an eclipse at this time except here and in the bible? Strange).

Clete
August 15th, 2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

Ok , I pass them onto the teacher all these evidence.

So tell me again where is the proof, maybe I can see it in the Egyptian culture as well, and all the story of Moses, and evidence that so many people travel through the desert, and there is tons of historical facts out side of the bible, or even about Adam and Eve existence, and about the characters in the bible as Paul, and Peter, and Mary.

Maybe you have the evidence of the bone or dust of Virgin Mary sense she was not resurrected.

Look, I don't get you. In McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" he goes on for some 17 pages specifically about the historicity of Jesus Christ alone. The book itself is 687 pages of almost entirely historical evidence pertaining to one aspect of Christianity or another, most of which is secular in nature. And that's only the first resource I recommended to you.
I'm beginning to wonder whether this is idiot teacher of yours is beginning to get to you. If so, I recommend that you spend less energy on the emotional aspects of your relationship with God and do some hard core intellectual home work. There is simply no reason why any Christian should be afraid of history. Indeed, our faith is based in history!

1Cr 15: 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

If Jesus didn't exist, then he should as heck didn't rise from the dead!

Now, I've given you the tools, it's up to you to do the work. I'm not here to spoon feed you the arguments. Besides, if you don't know them already, you need to learn them for yourself. Your faith is on shaky ground otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Mustard Seed
August 15th, 2004, 07:11 PM
c.moore,

I was wondering if you could suggest a book to your 'teacher'. It's called "Abraham in Egypt" by Hugh Nibley. I am curious to see what his reaction would be to it. Oh and firechyld might be interested in it also as it talks about papyrus.

One Eyed Jack
August 15th, 2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by ButcherABC

Before I read this document, I want an answer to the following. Do you judge this papyrus as similar to the Exodus by the same standard Christians use when they deny similarities between Christian beliefs and those of other religions of the time, and the same standard by which they deny similarities between the tale of Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh? IOW, are you using a double standard in claiming this papyrus as evidence for the Exodus?

I'm not aware of anyone that denies the similarities between the Biblical flood account and the mythical Gilgamesh story. Sure, there are similarities -- the best way to tell a lie is to mix a little truth in with it. Hence the similarities.

Rolf Ernst
August 15th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Continue with your ad hominem attacks, Clete. It is easier for you to do than respond to Scripture proofs.

I was not intending to address you personally. I did not call your name.
I know your penchant for acusing others rather than dealing with scripture. If I had known you would respond or that you were active on the thread, I would have used my time in a way that did not welcome your comments. Continue your rant. I will not be listening.

Granite
August 15th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I'm not aware of anyone that denies the similarities between the Biblical flood account and the mythical Gilgamesh story. Sure, there are similarities -- the best way to tell a lie is to mix a little truth in with it. Hence the similarities.

Are you saying the Babylonians were deliberately lying?

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 08:45 PM
c moore


PLEASE ask your teacher to prove his beliefs.


you have all the info needed to prove to any thinking peron that Jesus really existed.
do not let your teacher think his words have meaning.
anyone with a mind can decide the truth for themselves

temple2006
August 15th, 2004, 08:58 PM
cmoore...Are you asking if the historical Jesus existed? The historian Josephus mentions him and it is accepted that such a man existed.

firechyld
August 15th, 2004, 09:03 PM
It is like trying to find my roots.


That I can respect. :) Good luck.

I heartily recommend that anyone with an interest in Christianity, be it intellectual or devotional, read Jospehus. It offers an interesting perspective on the four gospels, particularly as an example of war time writings.

As for c.moore's question about the similarities between the story of Jesus and other religions, there's an entire field of study devoted to comparitive theologies. The similarities between various religions cannot be denied, and more appear as one studies further.

*shrug*

I, of course, am not going to attempt to offer any explanation for this. But it's a very interesting topic.

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 09:06 PM
ask your teacher

if the original "PLACE ANY DOCUMENT HERE" does not exist, does this prove it never did?

Clete
August 15th, 2004, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Continue with your ad hominem attacks, Clete. It is easier for you to do than respond to Scripture proofs.

I was not intending to address you personally. I did not call your name.
I know your penchant for accusing others rather than dealing with scripture. If I had known you would respond or that you were active on the thread, I would have used my time in a way that did not welcome your comments. Continue your rant. I will not be listening.

What are you talking about? Do you even know what ad hominem means?
You directly addressed me in your last mindless post and quoted a Scripture that is ripped out of its context (as usual) and then proceeded to attack me for no reason whatsoever! After defending myself I give you yet another opportunity to act your age and respond to the original question and this is the nonsense I get in return. It would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous!

I ask you again, and we'll see if it goes a third time without even being acknowledged and being a valid question much less actually being answered.

Does any such person exist, too whom God does not wish to reveal Himself? And why isn't the Bible itself that revelation to anyone who can read or be read too?

Now can you answer the question or can't you?
Ignore me if you like; the point is that others will not.
You can be all angry at me or even hate my guts if you want, I don't frankly care. As long as you spew out heretical nonsense, you can expect me to call you on it. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that if you had had an ounce of self control you would have realized that I wasn't picking a fight with you and hadn't accused you of anything to begin with.

And one last thing.
You are making a habit of lying...

I know your penchant for accusing others rather than dealing with scripture.
This is an outright lie and you know it.
As long as people are respectful, so am I but if someone wants to throw it down, I don't back off. You came at me with attitude and gave you back more attitude than you could handle because I mix my attitude with the truth. Now you need to repent and stop this habitual lying and grow up. One good step in that direction would be for you to respectfully respond to my questions as asked. Although, I regretfully expect that you will not do so.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

One Eyed Jack
August 15th, 2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Are you saying the Babylonians were deliberately lying?

Whoever made the story up was. Either that, or they were filling in the details with their imagination.

firechyld
August 15th, 2004, 09:53 PM
Whoever made the story up was. Either that, or they were filling in the details with their imagination.

And what of the accepted scholarly position that the Mesopotamian myth predates the Hebrew one?

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Whoever made the story up was. Either that, or they were filling in the details with their imagination.
ever play that game in school when a story gets past around a room, and it changes?
these are either 2 diffwerent floods, or the same flood as told by a different culture.

im guessing thats what your sayin

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

And what of the accepted scholarly position that the Mesopotamian myth predates the Hebrew one?

predates???

an older known record maybe

firechyld
August 15th, 2004, 09:59 PM
It's believed that the Mesopotamian myth is the older of the two... whether you want to believe that one was written first, or that one flood happened first is up to you.

One Eyed Jack
August 15th, 2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by brother Willi

ever play that game in school when a story gets past around a room, and it changes?

Oh yeah. In kindergarten.


these are either 2 diffwerent floods, or the same flood as told by a different culture.

im guessing thats what your sayin

You're guessing right. :up:

One Eyed Jack
August 15th, 2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

And what of the accepted scholarly position that the Mesopotamian myth predates the Hebrew one?

What about it?

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

It's believed that the Mesopotamian myth is the older of the two... whether you want to believe that one was written first, or that one flood happened first is up to you.
YEP, just as you are free to believe as you choose to.

if the original of any document is lost to time, does that mean it never existed?

firechyld
August 15th, 2004, 10:09 PM
What about it?

If one is a lie, or borrowed, wouldn't it be more likely to be the younger version?

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

If one is a lie, or borrowed, wouldn't it be more likely to be the younger version?
your statement is correct, but it assumes to much

firechyld
August 15th, 2004, 10:13 PM
I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply pointing out a logical conclusion. I never said it was correct.

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply pointing out a logical conclusion. I never said it was correct.
fair enough.

if an older copy of the flood is found, then what?

firechyld
August 15th, 2004, 10:18 PM
What do you mean by "then what"?

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 10:18 PM
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences16.html

One Eyed Jack
August 15th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

If one is a lie, or borrowed, wouldn't it be more likely to be the younger version?

Not necessarily.

brother Willi
August 15th, 2004, 10:24 PM
http://www.earthage.org/floodlegends/flood__legends.htm

Daniel50
August 16th, 2004, 01:18 AM
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10: A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

ButcherABC
August 16th, 2004, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Not necessarily.

That does run against accepted practices that a copy of a document closer to the event is more likely to be accurate... or at least that's what Christians like to tell me.

ButcherABC
August 16th, 2004, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by brother Willi

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences16.html

You do realize that Chinese characters have changed significantly over time. In fact, the characters from the time of when the flood would have happened look significantly different from the characters of today, and the above "analysis" is no longer valid.

Aimiel
August 16th, 2004, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

And Aimiel, what the hell are you doing agreeing with Rolf when you don't even believe that the Bible is the standard of truth? That's a lie. I guess that makes you a liar.
What would you care if I ignored Bible verses or not?Because it seems to be a habit with you.
Shouldn't I follow the leading of the Spirit within?Well, friend, if that spirit leads you contrary to The Word of God, then it's definitely not The Holy Spirit.
As far as you are concerned if it feels right it is right.Is that what you believe the philosophy of someone who follows the leading and direction of The Holy Spirit is doing, following their 'feelings'? You have a misconception. Yes, He does impart feelings, such as He did to David, when He called him 'a man after God's Own Heart. He does cause a feeling of euphoria, to those whose hearts are right towards Him, but often brings conviction to those whose hearts are not. Are you feeling That Conviction? It would seem that you are, since you have jumped to the defensive, and seem to be trying to make yourself out to be 'holier-than-thou.' That, also, it would seem, is a habit with you. I hope that you can recover from that, as soon as you repent of it.

Turbo
August 16th, 2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

And what of the accepted scholarly position that the Mesopotamian myth predates the Hebrew one? They both were written after the actual event.

There are comic books from 60 years ago with stories about Captain America fighting Hitler. And there are much more recent accounts about WWII and Hitler that claim to be historical.

Would it be reasonable to conclude that the newer historical accounts are based on the older comic books? Should we conclude that WWII never took place and Hitler never existed because of the fictitious stories loosely based on them?

brother Willi
August 16th, 2004, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by ButcherABC

You do realize that Chinese characters have changed significantly over time. In fact, the characters from the time of when the flood would have happened look significantly different from the characters of today, and the above "analysis" is no longer valid.

can you tell me, as you say "the above "analysis" is no longer valid"

when was it "valid"

tellin me it aint so today, dont really mean much.
was it "valid" 2,500 B.C. as is claimed?

if so, whats your point?

brother Willi
August 16th, 2004, 08:44 AM
and for those who didnt hit thisLINK (http://www.earthage.org/floodlegends/flood__legends.htm)

Flood Legends

Several years ago a skeptic posed the following question to me:

"If there really was a worldwide flood, then why aren't there any flood legends?"

The question that needs to be answered is not: "where are all of the flood legends," but rather: "why hasn't the public been informed"? I say this because there are, in fact, many references from a broad spectrum of ancient civilizations that testify to a Worldwide Flood. And while this doesn't "prove" that there was a worldwide flood, it does add weight to the Biblical account in Genesis of such an event. These extra-Biblical accounts tell of a great flood that wiped out almost all life on the earth. For example, the Cree and Tolec Indians, ancient Persia, Greece, India, China, Mesopotamia, and Hawaii are just a few such cultures. One source says there are 270 such legends; another says 500. Many of these have the following three things in common:

1. The flood destroyed nearly all animal life on the earth,
2. A vessel of safety was provided.
3. Animals and people were on board.

For those who are interested, the following references should be of help. Along with This Link regarding the Historical accuracy of the Bible.

1. The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, by Paul S. Taylor, 4th edition, pp. 112-115. This book contains
information on a broad range of creation-evolution topics--including at least 100 geophysical and astro-
nomical clocks which yield young ages for the earth; it is well referenced and can be purchased for about
$8. It is available from : Answers In Genesis, 1-800-350-3232; or Master Books, 1-800-999-3777.
2. Motif-index of folk literature, by Stith Thompson, 1989 (Reprint of the 1955 ed.), Indiana University
Press, Bloomington, Indiana; this in turn, gives reference to 122 legends of the earth being destroyed by
a flood.
3. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament parallels, by A. Heidel, 2nd ed., 1949, University of Chicago Press,
pp. 80-93, 236, 249. This account was found by archeologists working in Iraq. It was written on clay
tablets called cuneiform from Ancient Babylon. See also This Link.
4. Folk-lore in the Old Testament, J. B. Frazer, 3 vols., Macmillan, London, 1918, pp. 66-67, 70.
5. Aztecs of Mexico: origin, rise and fall of the Aztec nation, G.C Vaillant, 1962, Revised ed., Doubleday,
Garden City, New York, p.56.
6. The Deluge Story in Stone, B. C. Nelson, 1968, 2nd ed., Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp.
165-176.
7. "Deluge," F. H. Woods, in J. Hastings (ed) , Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 4, pp. 445-457,
Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
8. The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, A study in scientific history, by D.W. Patten, Pacific Meridian
Publishing Co., Seattle, WA, 1967, 2nd ed., pp.164-192.
9. "Recent discoveries in Bible lands," Supplement in "Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, p.36,
1936, 1955, Funk & Wagnall's, New York.
10. "A comparison of narrative elements in ancient Mesopotamian creation-flood stories with Genesis 1-9,"
See Origins, 11: pp. 9-29; available from Loma Linda University; 1- 909-824-4548.
11. The flood reconsidered, F. A. Filby, 1970, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp.
28-30.
12. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, H. F. Vos, 1982, Vol. 2, pp.319-321, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan.
13. Myth Legend and Custom in the Old Testament, T. H. Gaster, 1969, Harper & Row, New York, pp.
83-131; for refs. see pp. 353-359. Note: This Book lists several hundred additional reference sources
of flood legends in a nation by nation format.
14. Unsolved Mysteries of the Past, Reader's Digest Assoc. Inc.1991, pp.78-81.
15. National Geographic, Dec. 1994; see the large (separate) map which was included with this issue; under the
section "Indians and the Fur Trade" reference is given to an ancient Cree (Indian) creation/flood story.
16. Dinosaurs by Design, by Dr. Duane T. Gish, Institute of Creation Research; p. 75 lists three different flood
stories: Hawaiian, Chinese, and Tolec Indian. 1-800-628-7640.


Copyright, 1999, 2000, 2004 Randy S. Berg; No part of this paper may be reproduced, used, or sold for profit without
the express written consent of the author. Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes only.

Home Upright Fossil Tree Evidence Flood Evidences
:D

brother Willi
August 16th, 2004, 10:27 AM
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040816&cat=news&st=newsd84gd8u80&src=ap


AP: Group Discovers John the Baptist Cave

Updated 11:36 AM ET August 16, 2004


By KARIN LAUB

KIBBUTZ TZUBA, Israel (AP) - Archaeologists said Monday they have found a cave where they believe John the Baptist anointed many of his disciples _ a huge cistern with 28 steps leading to an underground pool of water.

During an exclusive tour of the cave by The Associated Press, archaeologists presented wall carvings they said tell the story of the fiery New Testament preacher, as well as a stone they believe was used for ceremonial foot washing.

They also pulled about 250,000 pottery shards from the cave, the apparent remnants of small water jugs used in baptismal ritual.

"John the Baptist, who was just a figure from the Gospels, now comes to life," said British archaeologist Shimon Gibson, who supervised the dig outside Jerusalem.

However, others said there was no proof that John the Baptist ever set foot in the cave, about 2 1/2 miles from Ein Kerem, the preacher's hometown and now part of Jerusalem.

"Unfortunately, we didn't find any inscriptions," said James Tabor, a religious studies professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.



Tabor and his students have participated in the excavations.

Both Tabor and Gibson said it was very likely that the wall carvings, including one showing a man with a staff and wearing animal skin, told the story of John the Baptist. The carvings stem from the Byzantine period and apparently were made by monks in the fourth or fifth century.

Gibson said he believed the monks commemorated John at a site linked to him by local tradition.

Gibson said the carvings, the foot washing stone and other finds, taken together with the proximity of John's hometown, constituted strong circumstantial evidence that the cave was used by John.

John, a contemporary of Jesus who also preached a message of redemption, is one of the most important figures in Christianity. The discovery, if confirmed, would be among the most significant breakthroughs for biblical scholars in memory.

The cave is on the property of Kibbutz Tzuba, an Israeli communal farm just outside Jerusalem. A member of the kibbutz, Reuven Kalifon, knew of the cave's existence _ the community's nectarine orchards run right up to the mouth of the cave _ but it was filled with soil almost to the ceiling.

In 1999, Kalifon asked Gibson to inspect the cave more closely.

The archaeologist, who has excavated in the Holy Land for three decades, crawled through the small opening and began removing boulders near the wall of the cave. When he pushed aside one of the stones, he saw a head carved into the wall _ the top of the figure he believes depicts John.

Gibson, who heads the Jerusalem Archaeological Field Unit, a private research group, organized an excavation. During the five-year project, he wrote a book, entitled "The Cave of John the Baptist," to be published later this week.

Gibson said the cave _ 24 yards long, around four yards wide and four yards deep _ was carved in the Iron Age, somewhere between 800 and 500 B.C., by the Israelites who apparently used it as an immersion pool.

"It apparently was adopted by John the Baptist, who wanted a place where he could bring people to undergo their rituals, pertaining to his ideas of baptism," Gibson said.

Believers would have walked down 28 stone steps. To their right, they would have discarded their clothes in a niche carved into the wall.

At the bottom of the steps, they would have placed the right foot onto a stone with an imprint of a foot. A small depression to the right of the imprint would have contained oil, to be poured over the foot for cleansing, Gibson said.

Aimiel
August 16th, 2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Both you and Aimiel have no business on a board where serious discussions of theology take place. You are not only both intellectually dishonest and incapable of reading but are also a straight up liar.Where, specifically, do you believe I have been 'intellectually dishonest,' or told a 'straight up lie?' Personally, I've never had anything against you, until you attacked me, for no good reason, and then failed to respond to my post, which clearly showed the reasoning (scripturally and spiritually sound) behind my earlier post(s). You have not only failed in regard to the discussion, but now, because of your poor attitude (bitter and condescending) you've effectively hijacked this thread, for the purposes of vaunting your own ego. That isn't discussing theology seriously, it's suppression and repression, and is not in the least bit productive, Christian or honest.

c.moore
August 16th, 2004, 04:13 PM
Maybe you might take some time and research if what he teaches and if his new book about this is true.


Jesus was a reality attested to by historians.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Josephus,"Antiquities Of The Jews," Book #18, Chapter 2, section 3
(“The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."
– (Catholic Encyclopedia))
Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.
The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."
Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.
It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.
How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.
It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.
In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine


Bishop Eusebius, self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD.
Whole libraries of antiquity where torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.
Because the Testimonium is so readily exposed as a forgery, Christian apologists turn increasingly to a much briefer reference in Book 20:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, (or some of his companions). And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
Josephus (The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9)

Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" !

"The following description of Jesus Christ was written by Publius Lentrelus, a resident of Judea in the reign of Tiberius Caesar. It first appeared in the writings of Saint Anselm of Canterbury, 11th century:
(The 11th century is too late. Not credible).
There lives at this time in Judea a man of singular virtue whose name is Jesus Christ, whom the barbarians esteem as a prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the immortal God.
He calls back the dead from the graves and heals all sorts of diseases with a word or touch. He is a tall man, well-shaped, and of an amiable and reverend aspect; his hair of a color that can hardly be matched, falling into graceful curls, waving about and very agreeable crouching upon his shoulders, parted on the crown of the head, running as a stream to the front after fashion of the Nazarites. His forehead high, large and imposing; hs cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with a lovely red; his nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry; his beard, and of a color suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin and parted in the middle like a fork; his eyes bright blue, clear and serene. Look innocent, dignified, manly and mature. In proportion of body most perfect, and captivating; his arms and hands delectable to behold.
He rebukes with majesty, councils with mildness, His whole address whether in word or deed, being eloquent and grave. No man has seen him laugh, yet his manners are exceedingly pleasant, but he has wept frequently in the presence of men. He is temporate, modest and wise. A man for his extraordinary beauty and perfection, surpassing the children of men in every sense."
E. Raymond Capt's book, "The Resurrection Tomb"
TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:
A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.
Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.
Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.
Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar "
E. Raymond Capt's book, "The Resurrection Tomb"- Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C
(Where was this information found? When was it written? It was not written before the fourth century).
"I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: 'If you ever meet him you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy....' This Jew is convinced that he is the Messiah of the world. ...this was the same person that was born of the virgin in Bethlehem some twenty-six years before..."
The Archko Volume, Gamaliel's Interview, translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge, Genoa, Italy, from manuscripts in Constantinople and the records of the Senatorial Docket taken from the Vatican of Rome (1896) 92-93
(Again, this is written too late: after the fourth century).
In Christ
Mary
Only when the Magisterium is accepted docilely in a spirit of faith ... can you avoid the temptations caused by the superficial fascination of theological trends which disfigure and obscure the truth" Pope John Paul II

(“What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!? Pope Leo X).

Chileice
August 16th, 2004, 05:06 PM
Hey c.moore,
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape. There have been and are conspiracy theorists from day 1. Matthew even points out that early people tried to start a conspiracy saying Jesus' body was robbed. Why on earth would he even plant that "doubt" if it wasn't true?

The other thing to remember is people question everything, I mean everything. There are all kinds of people who doubt the haulocaust, who doubt men went to the moon, people who thimk Elvis is alive (really!) people who doubt ANYTHING, even things they have seen with their own eyes.

The mythology teacher doesn't have to deal with his own sins or his own conscious as long as Jesus id "just another myth" but if he admits his reality, he will be stuck having to make a decision. So he has conviently developed a complex armour to ward off any evidence to the contrary so that he doesn't have to deal with Jesus. People build scenarios to protect themselves from grief, from loss, from responsibility. He is just another in a long line of such people. He is also punch-drunk with his supposed intelectual superiority. But that is also a crock. Reality has a way of breaking those guys down eventually.

Clete
August 16th, 2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Where, specifically, do you believe I have been 'intellectually dishonest,' or told a 'straight up lie?' Personally, I've never had anything against you, until you attacked me, for no good reason, and then failed to respond to my post, which clearly showed the reasoning (Scripturally and spiritually sound) behind my earlier post(s). You have not only failed in regard to the discussion, but now, because of your poor attitude (bitter and condescending) you've effectively hijacked this thread, for the purposes of vaunting your own ego. That isn't discussing theology seriously, it's suppression and repression, and is not in the least bit productive, Christian or honest.


Actually, Aimiel it seems I owe you an apology!

I must be losing my mind! I was sure you were the one who had told me a long while back that your test of truth was the Spirit's testimony within your own heart, and that you commonly get revelations from God that may or may not be directly Biblical, etc. However, not only am I not able to find any such post, but your posts here seem to contradict such a belief and I admittedly have not followed your posts lately. So I must have you mixed up with some other knucklehead around here! I hope you will accept my sincere apologies.
I still don't get why you would agree with Rolf though, since he is the one who attacked me personally after having been asked a simple and fair question and then after I responded to his attack he accused me of posting ad hominem attacks! A little hypocritical don't you think?
All I ever wanted to know is whether he believed what it sounded like he was saying or if he had miss stated it! A question I still have no real answer for! I can of course guess based on his extremely emotional over reaction but I'd prefer a direct answer to my question wouldn't you? Or do you also believe that there are those whom God does not wish to reveal Himself too?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Aimiel
August 17th, 2004, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Actually, Aimiel it seems I owe you an apology!Accepted!!!
I was sure you were the one who had told me a long while back that your test of truth was the Spirit's testimony within your own heart, and that you commonly get revelations from God that may or may not be directly Biblical, etc. Nope, that is not my own 'knuckleheaded' way of thinking. I believe that we're to study, to show ourselves approved, not only of men (which we seem to major in) but of The Lord, and especially of The Holy Spirit.
However, not only am I not able to find any such post, but your posts here seem to contradict such a belief and I admittedly have not followed your posts lately. So I must have you mixed up with some other knucklehead around here! I hope you will accept my sincere apologies.I forgave you before you asked, but it is also nice to receive an apology, so: thank you.
I still don't get why you would agree with Rolf though, since he is the one who attacked me personally after having been asked a simple and fair question and then after I responded to his attack he accused me of posting ad hominem attacks!I'm always ready to agree with true statements, and those who use The Word of God to do things against sound doctrine or who hold The Truth in un-righteousness are not always easily discernable.
All I ever wanted to know is whether he believed what it sounded like he was saying or if he had miss stated it!I'll admit here that I haven't been following all of your correspondence with him.
A question I still have no real answer for! I can of course guess based on his extremely emotional over reaction but I'd prefer a direct answer to my question wouldn't you?I always try to set any emotions aside, and be as direct as possible, and believe that we'd be more amiable with one another if more of us did the same. I try to remember that I'm an ambassador for The Lord, and not my own 'agenda' or politics.
Or do you also believe that there are those whom God does not wish to reveal Himself to?I believe that He has chosen the foolish things of this world to not only prevent them from 'seeing' Him, but to confound the efforts of those who think themselves 'wise,' who have become fools.

c.moore
August 17th, 2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Chileice

Hey c.moore,
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape. There have been and are conspiracy theorists from day 1. Matthew even points out that early people tried to start a conspiracy saying Jesus' body was robbed. Why on earth would he even plant that "doubt" if it wasn't true?

The other thing to remember is people question everything, I mean everything. There are all kinds of people who doubt the haulocaust, who doubt men went to the moon, people who thimk Elvis is alive (really!) people who doubt ANYTHING, even things they have seen with their own eyes.

The mythology teacher doesn't have to deal with his own sins or his own conscious as long as Jesus id "just another myth" but if he admits his reality, he will be stuck having to make a decision. So he has conviently developed a complex armour to ward off any evidence to the contrary so that he doesn't have to deal with Jesus. People build scenarios to protect themselves from grief, from loss, from responsibility. He is just another in a long line of such people. He is also punch-drunk with his supposed intelectual superiority. But that is also a crock. Reality has a way of breaking those guys down eventually.

maybe he has more proven points and knowledge as most christians and pastors.

i think the evidence showing the myth of the bible can stand as fairy tales because we have no leg to back up any proof.

Mustard Seed
August 17th, 2004, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

If one is a lie, or borrowed, wouldn't it be more likely to be the younger version?

With a theology such as the one I hold, a belief that truth has been restored countless times through revelation from God to a prophet or prophets, the chronological order is not demanding.

The reason for restoration is due to previous apostasy. Since apostasy entails corrupting true beliefs and records and would naturaly predate any restoration the chronology is not too relevant.

The pattern is one of having the truth, lossing it through apostasy/alterations, and having it restored. The existance of connections throughout history is something forseen by such a concept of what has happened throughout the course of history.

Delmar
August 18th, 2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

And what of the accepted scholarly position that the Mesopotamian myth predates the Hebrew one? If you accept ,for the sake of argument, that the biblical account is 100% correct it would be true that the Mesopotamian's and the Chinese and all of the people on earth are children of Noah. The Mesopotamian writings would in fact be older because the Hebrew culture started with Abraham.

Aimiel
August 18th, 2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Mustard Seed

With a theology such as the one I hold, a belief that truth has been restored countless times through revelation from God to a prophet or prophets, the chronological order is not demanding.Why, if these 'revelations' are really from God, do they keep having to be re-written, and then older versions of them have to be denied or 'excused away?'

Mustard Seed
August 18th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Why, if these 'revelations' are really from God, do they keep having to be re-written, and then older versions of them have to be denied or 'excused away?'

They don't. To every season. Perhaps you can answer what I haven't seen anyone else answer adequatly. Why did God command Abraham to deceive?

billwald
August 18th, 2004, 08:41 PM
To answer the origional question, no. No one but the Holy Spirit can give proof that Jesus Christ is the Messiah

One Eyed Jack
August 18th, 2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Mustard Seed

They don't. To every season. Perhaps you can answer what I haven't seen anyone else answer adequatly. Why did God command Abraham to deceive?

Uh... who exactly did God command Abraham to deceive?

firechyld
August 18th, 2004, 09:48 PM
If you accept ,for the sake of argument, that the biblical account is 100% correct it would be true that the Mesopotamian's and the Chinese and all of the people on earth are children of Noah. The Mesopotamian writings would in fact be older because the Hebrew culture started with Abraham.

Nicely done. :)

c.moore
August 19th, 2004, 04:57 AM
the oneness but the church and religion do not teach the original back ground of our belief at all , and the proof of them historically, even the fondation of where we get the Idea of belief,historical facts about the bible and how it was formed, also what was before the hebrews and Jews, is never mention.
the world is billions of years old
, and what is being taught what has happen in between these times is not mention, even what was tzhe people like who lived in these years before 15.000 BC ?
What did they have for story`s in their time?
Did they worship and what?
How did these pre ancient people look at their gods, and how did they come into the trinity God.

Was the story of Adam and EVE ever told before the bible existed and did the character existed before the bible??

I have looked at Islam and trace also how the Koran was copied , and even traced back to a moon god, and many story of the koran was thought of from pre arabs, and pagan religions.

So can this be also the same by our bible, and religion??

Why not put our bible and belief under a microscope and see if every thing was copied , and not just came down from heaven at one time.

What proof do we have , and can we find these evidence???

Clete
August 19th, 2004, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

the oneness but the church and religion do not teach the original back ground of our belief at all , and the proof of them historically, even the fondation of where we get the Idea of belief,historical facts about the bible and how it was formed, also what was before the hebrews and Jews, is never mention.
the world is billions of years old
, and what is being taught what has happen in between these times is not mention, even what was tzhe people like who lived in these years before 15.000 BC ?
What did they have for story`s in their time?
Did they worship and what?
How did these pre ancient people look at their gods, and how did they come into the trinity God.

Was the story of Adam and EVE ever told before the bible existed and did the character existed before the bible??

I have looked at Islam and trace also how the Koran was copied , and even traced back to a moon god, and many story of the koran was thought of from pre arabs, and pagan religions.

So can this be also the same by our bible, and religion??

Why not put our bible and belief under a microscope and see if every thing was copied , and not just came down from heaven at one time.

What proof do we have , and can we find these evidence???

c. moore,

I truly do not understand why you are burying you head in the sand like this!

Every one of these issues are dealt with directly in the resources I have mentioned, everything from the age of the earth to what ancient people's believed and why. These are all valid questions which you are by no means the first to ask and which have been dealt with quite nicely.

I give up. As I said before, I've given you the tools; it’s up to you to do your own homework.


Resting in Him,
Clete

c.moore
August 19th, 2004, 05:16 AM
Clete Pfeiffer

the Lady was BTW buried in the same cementary as my parent in cambridge where I am born.wwooow

c.moore
August 19th, 2004, 05:21 AM
My teacher has comitted on thi:

Jesus was a reality attested to by historians.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Josephus,"Antiquities Of The Jews," Book #18, Chapter 2, section 3
(“The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."
– (Catholic Encyclopedia))
Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.
The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."
Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.
It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.
How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.
It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.
In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine


Bishop Eusebius, self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD.
Whole libraries of antiquity where torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.
Because the Testimonium is so readily exposed as a forgery, Christian apologists turn increasingly to a much briefer reference in Book 20:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, (or some of his companions). And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
Josephus (The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9)

Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" !

"The following description of Jesus Christ was written by Publius Lentrelus, a resident of Judea in the reign of Tiberius Caesar. It first appeared in the writings of Saint Anselm of Canterbury, 11th century:
(The 11th century is too late. Not credible).
There lives at this time in Judea a man of singular virtue whose name is Jesus Christ, whom the barbarians esteem as a prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the immortal God.
He calls back the dead from the graves and heals all sorts of diseases with a word or touch. He is a tall man, well-shaped, and of an amiable and reverend aspect; his hair of a color that can hardly be matched, falling into graceful curls, waving about and very agreeable crouching upon his shoulders, parted on the crown of the head, running as a stream to the front after fashion of the Nazarites. His forehead high, large and imposing; hs cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with a lovely red; his nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry; his beard, and of a color suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin and parted in the middle like a fork; his eyes bright blue, clear and serene. Look innocent, dignified, manly and mature. In proportion of body most perfect, and captivating; his arms and hands delectable to behold.
He rebukes with majesty, councils with mildness, His whole address whether in word or deed, being eloquent and grave. No man has seen him laugh, yet his manners are exceedingly pleasant, but he has wept frequently in the presence of men. He is temporate, modest and wise. A man for his extraordinary beauty and perfection, surpassing the children of men in every sense."
E. Raymond Capt's book, "The Resurrection Tomb"
TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:
A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.
Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.
Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.
Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar "
E. Raymond Capt's book, "The Resurrection Tomb"- Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C
(Where was this information found? When was it written? It was not written before the fourth century).
"I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: 'If you ever meet him you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy....' This Jew is convinced that he is the Messiah of the world. ...this was the same person that was born of the virgin in Bethlehem some twenty-six years before..."
The Archko Volume, Gamaliel's Interview, translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge, Genoa, Italy, from manuscripts in Constantinople and the records of the Senatorial Docket taken from the Vatican of Rome (1896) 92-93
(Again, this is written too late: after the fourth century).
In Christ
Mary
Only when the Magisterium is accepted docilely in a spirit of faith ... can you avoid the temptations caused by the superficial fascination of theological trends which disfigure and obscure the truth" Pope John Paul II
(“What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!? Pope Leo X).

Aimiel
August 19th, 2004, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Mustard Seed

They don't. To every season. Perhaps you can answer what I haven't seen anyone else answer adequatly. Why did God command Abraham to deceive? I'm sorry you missed the point, when Jesus already explained that Abraham saw His Day, and was glad that his wife could truly be called his sister, with God as their Father, because of Jesus' sacrifice, so that he would not have to 'lie' when saying, "This is my sister." The Lord knows what a man should do to 'get ahead' in any situation, and will tell us how to go about doing just that, if we will only ask Him. Jesus said that The Holy Spirit would tell us things to come. Example: I woke up one morning, and The Holy Spirit said, "Call in 'sick' today." I thought, right away, "That's not God." He said it again. I did too. He said it a third time, and I didn't say anything, I just ignored Him. Because of a very poor manager, and an even worse attitude on my part, about 2-1/2 hours later, I quit my job. I cried on the way home, and vowed to never 'miss it' again, and not discern The Voice of The Lord. I have yet to be dissappointed, with His promptings and leadings. :thumb:

Aimiel
August 19th, 2004, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by billwald

To answer the origional question, no. No one but the Holy Spirit can give proof that Jesus Christ is the Messiah Bill,

You're correct. Your understanding is perfect. Most un-believers don't know this, because if they did, they'd understand The Truth. Many who profess to be Christians don't know (or acknowledge) this truth. He is The One Who revealse all truth, and will show us things to come. Thank God for The Holy Spirit.

Mustard Seed
August 19th, 2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Uh... who exactly did God command Abraham to deceive?

I made a mistake. It was not a command to deceive so much as a go ahead to do so. I was referring to what Abraham did with Pharaoh and latter with Abimalech concerning his wife/sister. I'm sorry I got that mixed up. It would properly be phrased, my previous question, 'Why did God permit and seemingly endorse Abraham's deceptions concerning his wife (and afterwords Issac's similar deception)?'

c.moore
August 23rd, 2004, 05:38 AM
So I guess there is no logical or historical proof out side of the bible that Jesus and that even Adam and Eve really lived or existed.

maybe these thing just are not made to be proven , just accept and believe.

here it believe it and don`t research it plain and simple, because you might come up with a different answer or know something differently.

Aimiel
August 23rd, 2004, 10:28 AM
If your faith in God is such that it will wane in the face of physical evidence contrary to The Word of God, your faith is weak. Circumstances will always try to discount The Word of God. I believe that our circumstances are the mountain that Jesus wants us to grow the faith to cast into the sea.

Granite
August 23rd, 2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

So I guess there is no logical or historical proof out side of the bible that Jesus and that even Adam and Eve really lived or existed.

maybe these thing just are not made to be proven , just accept and believe.

here it believe it and don`t research it plain and simple, because you might come up with a different answer or know something differently.

This is one of the most honest posts I've ever read at TOL.

The minute Christians start asking if you've been reading "dangerous books" you know you've just crossed a line, whether you know it or not. There definitely seems to be a strain in evangelical circles where thinking for yourself is okay only up to a certain point.

philosophizer
August 23rd, 2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

So I guess there is no logical or historical proof out side of the bible that Jesus and that even Adam and Eve really lived or existed.

maybe these thing just are not made to be proven , just accept and believe.

here it believe it and don`t research it plain and simple, because you might come up with a different answer or know something differently.


I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but what about the apostles, and subsequent church fathers willing to be martyred rather than renounce their faith? Should we all assume they were just crazy? Or should we consider the possibility that they died to preserve the Truth that they knew?

Granite
August 23rd, 2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but what about the apostles, and subsequent church fathers willing to be martyred rather than renounce their faith? Should we all assume they were just crazy? Or should we consider the possibility that they died to preserve the Truth that they knew?

Mormons have been willing to die for their church, too. So called "heretics" throughout the church's own history have been martyred for what they sincerely believed.

"The truth that they knew" is quite a dicey argument, as far as I'm concerned.

philosophizer
August 23rd, 2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Mormons have been willing to die for their church, too. So called "heretics" throughout the church's own history have been martyred for what they sincerely believed.

"The truth that they knew" is quite a dicey argument, as far as I'm concerned.


But there is some validity to the fact that several people who say they directly knew Jesus, and several people who all heard the same original testimony from those that claim to know Him, did die instead of "go back on their story." No argument's perfect, but that seems to me to have some sense to it.

Granite
August 23rd, 2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

But there is some validity to the fact that several people who say they directly knew Jesus, and several people who all heard the same original testimony from those that claim to know Him, did die instead of "go back on their story." No argument's perfect, but that seems to me to have some sense to it.

...and Joseph Smith and other "witnesses" to the Book of Mormon's validity saw angels and spoke with God the Father and the Son in person, if you're in the LDS church. Smith faced persecution wherever he went and died at the hands of a mob rather than fess up, make up a confession, and come clean. Joan of Arc went to the stake rather than admit she was koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs or lying. Somewhere along the line either Joan and Joe were either nuts, con artists, sincerely deluded, or something else (perhaps a combination of all three). Or, perhaps, they were right. But one way or another they sincerely, truly believed in what they died for. I for one aren't a believer in God talking to militant French women and I'm not gonna join my local Mormon congregation any time soon. And I don't care how sincere either of these two were during their lifetime.

Sincerely believing in a movement or person isn't enough to prove it's onto something. Ask any radical, bomb thrower, or revolutionary. It doesn't mean they're wrong or right; it's just not a compelling argument.

firechyld
August 23rd, 2004, 07:08 PM
I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but what about the apostles, and subsequent church fathers willing to be martyred rather than renounce their faith? Should we all assume they were just crazy? Or should we consider the possibility that they died to preserve the Truth that they knew?

Is it any less "true" just because it cannot be historically verified?

They might have died for something completely different than what we understand them to have died for. The point is that they still died, and from the point of view of modern Christians, they died for good reason.

c.moore
August 24th, 2004, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

This is one of the most honest posts I've ever read at TOL.

The minute Christians start asking if you've been reading "dangerous books" you know you've just crossed a line, whether you know it or not. There definitely seems to be a strain in evangelical circles where thinking for yourself is okay only up to a certain point.

Thanks!
This is what my teacher said about the belief system it is ok until you come near or outside the box or circles, and certain limited points.
When you come beyond that point you will and should be condemned by the Holy Spirit , even though there might not be no biblical proof, just accept what you think the Holy spirit might say, like for instance give up all you money, tithes, and believe all any pastor say`s, or commands.

Granite
August 24th, 2004, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

Thanks!
This is what my teacher said about the belief system it is ok until you come near or outside the box or circles, and certain limited points.
When you come beyond that point you will and should be condemned by the Holy Spirit , even though there might not be no biblical proof, just accept what you think the Holy spirit might say, like for instance give up all you money, tithes, and believe all any pastor say`s, or commands.

It's true about any belief system. Stray too far one way or another or start asking certain questions and you hit a firewall.

c.moore
August 24th, 2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

It's true about any belief system. Stray too far one way or another or start asking certain questions and you hit a firewall.

So are you agreeing that we should also stay away from believing, and faith??

Granite
August 24th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

So are you agreeing that we should also stay away from believing, and faith??

Not at all. I am saying that this is just a symptom of fundamentalism, whether it's Judaic, Islamic, or Christian. Religious fundamentalism by its nature discourages intellectual inquiry, skepticism, and examination. All religions that are fundamental in nature are, in one way or another, self-proving. Go outside that box and you'll find yourself in a world of grief.

c.moore
August 24th, 2004, 03:58 PM
granite1010

But wouldn`t we have a better picture of things from out that box , and a better view of reality to see the facts??

why not question our own beliefs , and bible?

Why is this not allowed but we can condemned other religions and belief and try to prove them wrong??

c.moore
August 25th, 2004, 08:18 AM
This is the teachers reply to a christian and too christian scholars:

ask your professor to prove this. there are plenty of writings about jesus before the 4th century ad
.(Where are these writings about Jesus before the 4th century A.D.? Produce them. Christians always make that statement but never produce any proof of an historical flesh and blood Jesus. Do the research instead of simply believing and making ungrounded statements.)
i find it hard to see how there could have been a christianity for 300 years without christ. honestly i cannot think of a single scholar who even suggests that the writings of the new testament come this late.(You need to do research and look at the facts.)


Here are some facts about the bible.

A collection appeared in the first century B.C. and again in the first century A.D. to be accepted by the Jews of the Diaspora as sacred, and passed on to Christians. In both Jewish and Christian hands the papyri underwent many changes. In the 4th century A.D., St. Jerome collected some Hebrew manuscripts and edited them to produce the Latin Vulgate, a Bible of considerable inaccuracy, differing markedly from Jerome?fs stem texts.



The King James Bible relied mostly on a Greek text collected and edited by Erasmus n the 16th century, which in turn relied on a Byzantine collection assembled gradually at Constantinople between the 4th and 8th centuries. A few older texts have been discovered: the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Chester Beatty papyri. All are fragmentary, all differ from one another and from the King James version.

According to one scholar, ?gThere are no known portions of the Bible older than the 4th century A.D. (Charles F. Pfeifer. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible).

The Revised Version of the New Testament published in 1881 tried to correct some of the more glaring errors. It erased the spurious final twelve verses of Mark, which were late interpolations including the words that caused centuries of suffering: ?gHe that believeth not shall be damned.?h It eliminated the fraudulent translation ?gJosepth and his mother,?h intended to preserve the dogma of the virgin birth, and restored the original ?ghis father and his mother.?h It omitted the forged interpolation intended to preserve the dogma of the trinity: ?gFor there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these are one.?h These words appeared nowhere before the 15th century A.D. However, the Catholic church insisted on retaining the forgery.

In 1897 the Congregation of the Index, with the approval of Pope Leo XIII, forbade any further research into the origins of this text. (If the Bible is the word of God, why the fear of research?)
Richard Simon?fs 17th-century Critical History of the Old Testament exhibited the now well-known internal evidence that the books of Moses were not written by Moses but were compiled by many hands at a much later date. Bishop Bossuet pronounced this work of scholarship ?ga mass of impieties,?h drove its author out of the Oratory, and ordered the entire first edition burned. Dr. Anexander Geddes, a Catholic scholar, translated the Old Testament in 1792 with a critical volume proving that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses, nor at any time prior to the reign of David. He was denounced as ?ga would-be corrector of the Holy Ghost.?h

Seven clerical scholars published Essays and Reviews in 1860, defining the new science of Bible criticism. They were denounced, and two were suspended from office; but they took their case to court, and won. In 1869 Kuenen?fs The Religion of Israel established Bible criticism as a valid field of investigation. He was followed by many others in Holland, Germany, and France. In 1889 the book of biblical essays called Lux Mundi gave up all pretense of the scriptures?f historicity or divine inspiration, admitting that the Bible is a confused mass of myth, legend, and garbled history, often contradicting provable facts.

When the theologians began to give in, they complained that viewing the Bible as myth would destroy the whole structure that their livelihood and self-respect depended on. After David Straus?fs Leben?fs Jesu disposed of the historicity of the Gospel stories, and Renan?fs Vie de J?Œesus showed that the Gospels cannot be taken as literal truth but only as romantic symbolism, the Rev. Maurice Jones exclaimed, ?gIf the Christ-Myth theory is true, and if Jesus never lived, the whole civilized world has for close upon two thousand years lain under the spell of a lie.?h

Obviously the Bible was full of myths and legends, but most orthordox theologians had no idea of their meaning. One reason was that they didn?ft study the corresponding myths and legends of other cultures-ancient paganism etc.. Christian missionaries viewed all other myths as absolutely false, but the myths of the Bible the saw as absolutely true.
One of the erroneous notions that still keep Christian women shackled to their Bible-based ?ginferior?h image is the notion that Christianity was founded on the New Testament, when in fact the early churches had no Gospels but rather created and produced their own (Herbert J. Muller. The Uses of the Past). Not only did churchmen falsely pretend an apostolic origin for their scriptures; they also weeded out all references to female authority or participation in Christian origins (Elaine Pagels. The Gnostic Gospels). Only the forbidden Gnostic Gospels retained hints that Jesus had 12 female disciples corresponding to the 12 male disciples, or that Mary Magdalene was the leader of them all. Even women?fs scholarship was denied. St.Jerome openly admitted that his co-authors of the Vulgate were two learned women; but later scholars erased the women?fs names and substituted the words ?gvenerable brothers.?h (Elise Boulding. The Underside of History).

Granite
August 25th, 2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

granite1010

But wouldn`t we have a better picture of things from out that box , and a better view of reality to see the facts??

why not question our own beliefs , and bible?

Why is this not allowed but we can condemned other religions and belief and try to prove them wrong??

I agree completely. Keeping one perspective your whole life is safe--and that's about it. Questioning what we believe, and why we believe it, is something the church SHOULD encourage. After all, it's not as though Christianity has anything to hide (or does it?) and if it's true, Christianity should be able to stand up to skepticism, questions, and examination. Right?

The same reasons Christians give for believing what they do are the very same reasons given by a fundamentalist Muslim or Jew. And all sides condemn one another. Fundamentalism does not take any quarter. It's not enough to agree; you have to constantly be on the attack. And that ain't cool.

Aimiel
August 25th, 2004, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Not at all. I am saying that this is just a symptom of fundamentalism, whether it's Judaic, Islamic, or Christian. Religious fundamentalism by its nature discourages intellectual inquiry, skepticism, and examination. All religions that are fundamental in nature are, in one way or another, self-proving. Go outside that box and you'll find yourself in a world of grief. I would encourage believers to continue to walk in the gifts that God gives to them, one of which is perfect love. That perfect love not only casts out all fear, it also allows them to do even more:

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails;

If someone has doubts about The Word of God, then that means that they are double-minded, and don't have their mind made up to walk with The Lord, no matter what the cost. When we have faith in our own 'understanding' or what we've 'proven' to ourselves, we don't demonstrate faith in God, but faith in flesh.

Granite
August 25th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Having doubt doesn't mean losing your faith, it just means taking a longer look at it.

billwald
August 25th, 2004, 11:12 AM
There are several extra biblical references to Jesus. You should be able to find them on your own.

openthestargate
August 25th, 2004, 05:45 PM
If you look up in the writings of the Jew Josephus he mentions the person of Jesus in his time. Also, you must realize that the gospel accounts found in the New Testament are HISTORICAL biographies, whether one accepts them or not.

john2001
August 25th, 2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by c.moore

I have been dealing with this mythology teacher , and interviewing him on my tv and radio programs, and he gave incredible answers and question I don`t know to deal with them and if I let them be broadcast to the unbelievers and my audience it might prove to people there never was a real Christ and bible and religion is just a copy of pagan worship, and ancient customs.

So can anyone here please give me science evidence or other evidence that Christ lived outside the use of the bible or an religious form of information??

Please it must be logical evidence where can be traced or shown from people who have nothing to do with christianity and are not on any side just facts , and proofs, where no one can not say it is made up and please no stories, Just facts outside of the bible of Christ existance.

maybe their is bones or dust , clothes, or personal writting of Christ that can proven today he lived out side the bible or religious system.

maybe from the Egysiann side we can have evidence of the miracles of Moses or maybe someone can prove a millian people have really walked through the desert, and there is bones and writting of this all happening outside of the bible because non believers and other people have wrote about these biblical story and facts themselves to be trace to the bible as true facts.
Even the proof of mary existance if there is any please give me any links on this or proofs outside of the religion , and the bible on this please, it is so important.


This teacher has said there is no proof and no religion or scholar, priest , pastor, christian teachers can prove this out side of the bible, without using christian resources.


God Bless

You are pretty much out of luck. Aside from a one-liner in Josephus there is only the questionable accounts of the New Testament.

Even then, all the claims of "eyewitnesses" are pretty weak. The Gospels seem to have been written in the order:

Mark -> Mathew ->Luke-Acts -> John

So, if you read them in that order, the story evolves. (These are novels, not historical documents.)

The oldest extant copy of Mark does not have the last paragraph explicitly saying anything about the "resurrection'. That Mark was written sometime after 70 CE comes from the fake "prophesy" of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Each subsequent Gospel is retelling and correction of the previous oen, with Luke-Acts being the big novel. The mistake that is made by many Christians is to view these as being accounts in parallel, when really these are accounts in series.

The early church fathers were pretty sneaky shuffling them up so that this correction and revision pattern would not be seen.

(Look at Jesus last words in each of the Gospels.)

So, your teacher really is on the mark. Now, I am not saying that you shouldn't continue to be a Christian, but you might want to take apart the things that you have been believing and put them in a more rational perspective. Anything that is too good to be true, probably isn't, and anything supernatural should be viewed as being mythic in nature.

As far as the pagan angle is concerned, the audience of these Greek Jews who started Christianity was mixed between traditional Judaism and Greek and Egyptian beliefs.

Now, other things, such as those in the old testament, the notion of a worldwide flood (which never happened), and what not all get more mythical as you go back to the beginning in the Bible, where it is all mythic.

firechyld
August 25th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Also, you must realize that the gospel accounts found in the New Testament are HISTORICAL biographies, whether one accepts them or not.

I disagree. I'd be more inclined to say that they are war time persuasive writings, whether one accepts them or not.

c.moore
August 26th, 2004, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I disagree. I'd be more inclined to say that they are war time persuasive writings, whether one accepts them or not.

So is that where we get proof of Christ existance by looking at all the religious war and the fights of the church and mass killing by the church to see that Jesus might have really existed??:confused:

firechyld
August 26th, 2004, 12:46 AM
So is that where we get proof of Christ existance by looking at all the religious war and the fights of the church and mass killing by the church to see that Jesus might have really existed??

No, that's not what I meant. :)

What I was getting at was that there is no evidence outside of the gospels that they can be considered "historical biographies"... whereas there is hefty extra-biblical evidence that they are war time writings by members of a minority group.

Acceptance of the gospels as historical biographies, while not necessarily incorrect, is based on faith and religious dogma, as it cannot be verified. Acceptance of them as wartime writings or literature is at least verifiable... whether or not they are any more than that.

Does that make a bit more sense?

Aimiel
August 26th, 2004, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Having doubt doesn't mean losing your faith, it just means taking a longer look at it. I believe that we're supposed to meditate on The Word of God, and beyond that, only on things that are: true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report; virtuous, or praiseworthy. Beyond that, we're over-stepping our bounds. To dwell on doubt, or to contemplate negative possibilities or outcomes is to worry, which is sin. Having doubt is one thing, but doubting everything is sin. Making sin one's 'lifestyle' is not an option for Christians.

openthestargate
August 26th, 2004, 10:42 AM
Think on this.If Jesus Christ is not real, then you have no hope beyond this life. You might as well enjoy what few years of life you have left before your body gives out and dies, for that is all the living you will have. There will be NOTHING afterwords. No resurrection and no heaven. Just BLACKNESS or better put, extinction of being. The thought is awesome I know, but it is true. Oh without Christ and his mercy we shall never exist again and all those we love or have loved are perished to. Oh Lord Jesus, help my unbelief and remember me in paradise. Amen

Granite
August 26th, 2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

I believe that we're supposed to meditate on The Word of God, and beyond that, only on things that are: true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report; virtuous, or praiseworthy. Beyond that, we're over-stepping our bounds. To dwell on doubt, or to contemplate negative possibilities or outcomes is to worry, which is sin. Having doubt is one thing, but doubting everything is sin. Making sin one's 'lifestyle' is not an option for Christians.

In other words, only dwell on things that you already agree with.

People doubt. People ask questions. Christians doubt. Christians ask questions. If your solution's just "don't worry, be happy," it doesn't strike me as a particularly good one. Asking hard questions about what you believe and why isn't something a Christian should be afraid of.

c.moore
August 26th, 2004, 01:33 PM
Asking hard questions about what you believe and why isn't something a Christian should be afraid of.

Amen!

Aimiel
September 7th, 2004, 10:18 AM
I don't believe that I'm afraid of anything. I also don't believe that our 'standard' lifestyle, as believers, should be doubt. I believe that when The Word of God says that we should 'believe all things,' that it means that we don't need to be full of doubt, disputation and run around being critical, just like the world. We are supposed to 'believe the best' of people, and that type of faith is the type that often produces good behavior in others, even in dire circumstances.

Granite
September 7th, 2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

I don't believe that I'm afraid of anything. I also don't believe that our 'standard' lifestyle, as believers, should be doubt. I believe that when The Word of God says that we should 'believe all things,' that it means that we don't need to be full of doubt, disputation and run around being critical, just like the world. We are supposed to 'believe the best' of people, and that type of faith is the type that often produces good behavior in others, even in dire circumstances.

Asking questions doesn't mean necessarily that you doubt something. It just means you want to expand your knowledge.

If scripture is true and can be proven, then criticism of scripture shouldn't hold up to close scrutiny. And challenging what you believe can either reinforce and strengthen what you already know, or lead you elsewhere. That's true of all things academic, as well as spiritual.

I think a lot of Christians are either afraid to question what they've been told or are just trained to terminate certain trains of thought instinctively. And that just ain't cool.

Aimiel
September 7th, 2004, 10:54 AM
I agree, asking questions can be good. Being a continual doubter and being critical of everything that one comes across, regarding faith is, though.

I think that most Christians that I know, personally, have asked the deep questions, early-on in their faith. I know that my best friend and I fought with one another (part of the reason I enjoy TOL so much) over every single doubt we could come up with. We would oppose one another, just to get to the bottom of every doubt we could think of. I also believe that faith and understanding are a lifelong search, not something to be considered 'grasped,' and there are far too many that think, "I'm someone 'special,' and have already 'obtained.' " That is error, and is rampant.

c.moore
September 9th, 2004, 04:38 PM
don`t know if I posted this here or not but here is a letter my Mythology teacher wrote me.

You
cannot make a true atheist into a religious person and
you cannot, no matter what you present, convince
someone that Peter Pan is real who knows that Peter
Pan is just a fictional character. You do not go to
Christians to ask if Christianity is real, or Muslims
to find out if Islam is the true religion. I have to
teach you how to do credible research. So far the
only credible information that you've encountered are
the documents which I've given you. All the critics
you've presented, without exception, are Christians.
How can you go a Ford dealer and ask him if the
competition's car is better than the Ford . If you go
to your church and ask them if ten percent is wrong,
they're going to use scripture after scripture to tell
you that the church is right and that you should pay
them. They wouldn't listen because true believers
don't really hear anything other than their belief.
I'm totally not interested in any more Christian
information about how true Christianity is. People
who come up with proof that Jesus and Christianity is
real are people who believed in the lie to begin with.
Their arguments are like a computer loop and I've
really heard them all throughout the years. It is
useless to have such a discussion with them, they're
brain-dead when it comes to reality and they remain
either oppressed and/or work hard to keep other in
their slavish belief. These people will believe many
simple and illogical things, quoting scripture to
support the lie. It's like quoting the words of a
Peter Pan play to say how true it is. There is no
proof that Peter Pan was real, that's impossible, but
it can be proved that Peter Pan is false, that's a
fact no matter who believe it. If you believe that
Christ is real, then give the church your ten percent
and continue as you've been, blindly believing and
unquestioning. Blind and unquestioning Faith is
accepted as the best quality of a Christian or Muslim
etc.. If you look to the Bible to find truth, you
will not find it. If you look at other Christians,
even the lier's who claim that they were atheists but
by some miracle became Christians, you will not find
it. If you look for the truth about Santa Clause and
you go to a child who believe, that's not credible
research, because you're not looking for facts but
belief to back up belief. That is known as the blind
leading the blind. Believers cannot accept truth
because they fear that the foundations of their belief
would be destroyed and they're right. If they accept
truth then they simply have no reason to believe.

billwald
September 9th, 2004, 07:01 PM
>If Jesus Christ is not real, then you have no hope beyond this life.

Not TRUE! Bad logic. The OT could be 100% correct and the NT 100% error. If Jesus is not the messiah then the world is no worse off before Jesus was born and one would then look to Jewish theology for theological problems.

Aimiel
September 9th, 2004, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by c.moore's teechur

You cannot make a true atheist into a religious person and you cannot, no matter what you present, convince someone that Peter Pan is real who knows that Peter Pan is just a fictional character.There are no ahteists. There are those who deny that God exists, but to be an atheist, one would have to have proof that there is no God, and there isn't any, because He is, and because He designed us to be unable to prove or disprove His Existence (outside of His own soverign demonstration or 'planting' of that proof. Peter Pan might be known to be 'fictional' but exists, nevertheless, in the dreams and imaginations of free people all over this planet.
You do not go to Christians to ask if Christianity is real, or Muslims to find out if Islam is the true religion.I can't think of a more illogical statement. I guess if she thought she had a counterfeit $100 bill, she'd go to a criminal and ask whether or not it was real? No, she'd go to the bank.
I have to teach you how to do credible research. So far the only credible information that you've encountered are the documents which I've given you.I think we see where this is going... just listen to me, I'll straighten you out, since I have all the answers.
All the critics you've presented, without exception, are Christians.We criticize lies, yes.
How can you go a Ford dealer and ask him if the competition's car is better than the Ford.For one thing, most Ford dealers are more honest than any of the others, and Fords are, after all, everyone knows, the best cars. Why even bother asking the question? Because if you want to know the truth, you have to ask those who are professing it and living it. Christianity is truth, and provides proof of itself.
If you go to your church and ask them if ten percent is wrong, they're going to use scripture after scripture to tell you that the church is right and that you should pay them. I guess we're talking about the tithe. My earliest pastor told me (I still stick to it) to only give what The Lord lays on your heart and when and where He lays it on your heart to give. If more people did that, there'd be a lot less phoney churches. God doesn't lay it upon anyone's heart to tithe to fools.

They wouldn't listen because true believers don't really hear anything other than their belief.It works better than only hearing un-belief.
I'm totally not interested in any more Christian information about how true Christianity is.Well, OK then, stop thinking about it, and talking about it.
People who come up with proof that Jesus and Christianity is real are people who believed in the lie to begin with.God gives us faith in Him and in His Word. If we turn away from that faith, and turn to fables, it is our own fault.
Their arguments are like a computer loop and I've really heard them all throughout the years.That would make you omniscient.
It is useless to have such a discussion with them, they're brain-dead when it comes to reality and they remain either oppressed and/or work hard to keep other in their slavish belief.Denial and namecalling. Very intelligent.
These people will believe many simple and illogical things, quoting scripture to support the lie.God is real and Jesus is The Christ, whether we quote the scriptures or just tell the truth, truth is true, whether someone ever finds out or not.
It's like quoting the words of a Peter Pan play to say how true it is.Bangarrang!!!
There is no proof that Peter Pan was real, that's impossible, but it can be proved that Peter Pan is false, that's a fact no matter who believe it.I don't see that she's even proven that Peter Pan is 'false' whatever that might mean. He exists. He is a character in a story that is fictitious, but, nevertheless, the character exists.
If you believe that Christ is real, then give the church your ten percent and continue as you've been, blindly believing and unquestioning.It is not 'blind faith' that we follow, it is because our eyes are open to The Truth that we realize that Jesus is Lord and Christ.
Blind and unquestioning Faith is accepted as the best quality of a Christian or Muslim etc..We don't value those who are blind, any more than the world does. Muslims do, but not Christianity. We need to have a firm grip on reality, and know Whom it is that we believe in, so that we are ready to give an answer for the questions that arise about the faith that is in us.
If you look to the Bible to find truth, you will not find it.Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life; and by looking to The Word of God, we are able to find out how to enter into a relationship with Him.
If you look at other Christians, even the lier's who claim that they were atheists but by some miracle became Christians, you will not find it.Maybe not, but if you look at Jesus, you'll find Truth.
If you look for the truth about Santa Clause and you go to a child who believe, that's not credible research, because you're not looking for facts but belief to back up belief.Unless we come to The Lord, believing that He exists, because He says He does, just as children believe in Santa Clause because their 'natural' parents say he does, we will not see Him.
That is known as the blind leading the blind.No, the blind leading the blind would be c.moore's teacher and any haphazard follower she might have picked up along the way.
Believers cannot accept truth because they fear that the foundations of their belief would be destroyed and they're right. Believers know The Truth, and try to share Him, every chance we get. We aren't 'afraid' of any dis-proof, because there isn't any.
If they accept truth then they simply have no reason to believe. Which truth? That Peter Pan is false or that God doesn't exist, because someone claiming to have heard 'everything' knows better, because she has searched the entire universe and found that there is no God? That's perfectly ridiculous. :kookoo:

c.moore
September 19th, 2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by billwald

>If Jesus Christ is not real, then you have no hope beyond this life.

Not TRUE! Bad logic. The OT could be 100% correct and the NT 100% error. If Jesus is not the messiah then the world is no worse off before Jesus was born and one would then look to Jewish theology for theological problems.

How do you know this true, about Jesus and not a myth ??

What proofs?

jjjg
September 19th, 2004, 01:31 PM
Christ's influence on history is enough to prove that he was real.

We don't know all the facts about Cleopatra, but she was real and who else has been studied by historians more than Christ.

c.moore
September 19th, 2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Christ's influence on history is enough to prove that he was real.

We don't know all the facts about Cleopatra, but she was real and who else has been studied by historians more than Christ.

what history books was Jesus included outside the bible???

Why he wasn`t in history schools books??:confused:

Berean Todd
September 19th, 2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by c.moore

what history books was Jesus included outside the bible???

Why he wasn`t in history schools books??:confused:

Jesus was recorded by many non-Biblical sources. Josephus is most famous - and yes I realize that a portion of the Josephus text was corrupted and added to by latter Christians, but the core of it is still an unbelievably amazing picture of Jesus. Other sources exist as well, such as Tacitus the Roman historian, Pliny a Roman governer and others.

"They were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a fixed day. They would recite in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a God, and would bind themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any criminal act, but rather that they would not commit any fraud, theft or adultery, nor betray any trust nor refuse to restore a deposit on demand. This done, they would disperse, and then they would meet again later to eat together (but the food was quite ordinary and harmless)."

-Letter from Pliny to Trajan, 112 AD

"To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following."

-Tacitus, Annals 15 : 44


There is nothing in ancient history that is near as well attested as to the life and existence of Jesus Christ.

jjjg
September 19th, 2004, 04:02 PM
He was in all the schoolbook. Holy roman empire. All of Wetern culture has been influenced by Christianity.

jjjg
September 19th, 2004, 04:09 PM
Try to look up Constantine's wife. I think she wrote a lot.

PureX
September 19th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel There are no ahteists. There are those who deny that God exists, but to be an atheist, one would have to have proof that there is no God, and there isn't any....Oh, c'mon! That's completely ridiculous. Look up the words "theist" or "atheist" in a dictionary and you will see that it says nothing about having proof of God's existence or non-existence. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of a god. They're no different from a theist who does believe in the existence of a god. Neither of them have to have proof to believe as they believe, and to be what they are by definition.

Also, how can there even be proof that something doesn't exist? The only possible way of proving that something doesn't exist is to collect up all that does exist and see what's not there, and this is of course absurd and impossible. Yet does this mean that everything exists, by default, just because we can't prove that anything does not exist? Of course not.

Theists have no more proof that God does exist than atheists have proof that God does not exist. There is no possible way of proving the existence of God just as there is no possible way of disproving the existence of God. Theism and atheism are both beliefs based on subjective opinion, and not on objective proofs. And in fact there is no possible way of proving or disproving God's existence.

PureX
September 19th, 2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Berean Todd Jesus was recorded by many non-Biblical sources.....No, actually not. The actual life of Jesus is not documented anywhere, by anyone. Even the stories in the bible were not written by eye-witnesses as is so often believed, but have been written down by unknown authors many years later. People still argue about who wrote what, and who was copying what gospel document from whom, but most scholars agree that the documents that we actually have in our hands today were not written by anyone who actually knew Jesus. At best, they are copies of other documents that no longer exist, that might have been written by someone who actually did personally know Jesus.

And besides the bible, there are no corroberating records of Jesus' life at all. The references to Jesus that people often try to refer to as corroberating witnesses are not witnesses to anything but are only people who had heard about Jesus from others and then wrote about him as if he did exist. But they didn't actually know him or know that he existed as anything more than an idea in the minds of others. They aren't really witnesses to anything but other people's belief that Jesus existed.

There are millions of documents that attest to Jesus as an idea, and to the fact that many millions of people have presumed Jesus to have been an actual person. But when Jesus was an actual person, he was not even mentioned in any document or artifact that anyone has ever found.

This is not surprising, however, as billions of human beings have lived and died without ever having been recorded in any way, or if they were recorded, the document has been long since lost. The odds against any one person being documented by some ancient artifact two thousand years later would be astronomically high.

BillyBob
September 19th, 2004, 05:33 PM
Jesus was hardly mentioned anywhere besides the Bible, but he was mentioned.

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

PureX
September 19th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Jesus was hardly mentioned anywhere besides the Bible, but he was mentioned.

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm Heresay is not a reliable witness. That's why we don't accept it in court when we're trying to find out the truth about something that happened.

There are lots of documents that speak of Jesus as if he existed, but that were written by people who only heard of this Jesus from other people years ater Jesus' death. But hearing about Jesus from "believers" does not support the existence of Jesus the man, it only supports that there were people who believed in the myth of Jesus. This is an obvious example of the latter.

Also, looking for archeological evidence on a web site dedicated to Christian apologetics does not lend much credibiity to your point. It's sort of like asking Bill O'Rielly for unbiased information about some gay Hollywood liberal actor. He'll be constitutionally incapable of complying with such a request. Now if we had a translation of this artifact from some actual archeologists, who aren't pretend archeologiests from the Jerry Falwell college of propaganda and pseudo-science, and their translation indicated that the author had first hand knowledge of the existence of Jesus, that might be considered some pretty good evidence.

BillyBob
September 19th, 2004, 09:51 PM
Much of history is made up of heresay. Your point was that there is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus life, I have shown that you are wrong, which has become relatively frequent as of late.

firechyld
September 19th, 2004, 10:46 PM
I'm sorry, but I get really irritated when Christians try to use Josephus as extra-biblical "proof" of Jesus' life.

Have you actually READ Josephus? Yes, there are passages that could refer to Jesus... but if you're going to accept those passages as accurate you must accept the rest of Josephus' writings. Including the bits that clearly argue against the gospels as historically accurate.

jjjg
September 19th, 2004, 11:33 PM
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

This might help you as a source.

PureX
September 20th, 2004, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob Much of history is made up of heresay. Your point was that there is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus life, I have shown that you are wrong, which has become relatively frequent as of late. No, you haven't. All you've shown is that there is documentation that people believed in the myth of Jesus, which does not say anything about the actual existence of Jesus. But aparently you're not able to understand or recognize the difference. So we may as well just drop it.

PureX
September 20th, 2004, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

This might help you as a source. Documents "referring to Christ's life" are by their own definition statements of faith, and not evidence of fact. There are documents all over TOL that "refer to Christ's life". But none of them prove that Jesus the man ever existed. All they prove is that people believe that Jesus existed, and that he was the Christ. But what people believe was never the question. The question was is there and evidence that Jesus the man ever existed outside of the bible. And the answer is no, there is not.

jjjg
September 20th, 2004, 11:46 AM
Obviously you didn't read the post.

They had Jewish and pagan sources speaking of Christ (even if it was from a negative point of view which makes it even more genuine).

Aimiel
September 20th, 2004, 02:45 PM
Just like the mere fact that Jesus was described to men, because He would be able to give them eternal life; not because those telling the story wanted anyone to think more highly of them. Had that been their goal, they'd have certainly left out the part where they denied Him or didn't understand what He was doing. They'd have painted themselves in a better light. They were writing truth, and that is what Christians do. We admit to our sin, which, in turn, helps others who are in a similar situation to what we encountered.

Aimiel
September 20th, 2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Look up the words "theist" or "atheist" in a dictionary and you will see that it says nothing about having proof of God's existence or non-existence. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of a god. If I say there's no gold in China, would you believe me? If I tell you that I've searched under every rock and tree, lake and stream and found none; would you believe that I've done so? Not hardly. If I say there is no gold in China, during a televised interview, I would be willing to bet that several prospectors would find a way onto the next flight to Shang'hai. Saying one is atheist is foolish. The dictionary is not my God. God said that only a fool has said in his heart, "There is no God..." He is right. For one to believe that because they can't see or touch something proves that it doesn't exist is foolishness. Their heart beats, whether they believe it does or does not exist. Their brain tells them (at least) to bathe and dress, whether or not they believe in it. God is the same. He exists, whether or not agnostics ever make up their mind to accept the fact that He just might.
They're no different from a theist who does believe in the existence of a god.Most believers aren't fools.
Neither of them have to have proof to believe as they believe, and to be what they are by definition. I do, or I wouldn't believe. I have been in too many religious ceremonies where the zombies in, "The Night of the Living Dead," looked far more animated and alive than any of the participants. I have also been in too many religious circles where God isn't on the mind (much less heart) of anyone involved to want to ever take part in any dead religious practices. If God is not in it, it is a waste of time and stinks worse than anything.
Also, how can there even be proof that something doesn't exist?That's my point. To believe that something doesn't exist, one has to have proof otherwise. That's why I am not sure about evolution, there is no proof, either way. I guess I'm agnostic. If I say that it doesn't exist, I'd better have my proof in my hand.
The only possible way of proving that something doesn't exist is to collect up all that does exist and see what's not there, and this is of course absurd and impossible. Then why do scientists claim that the theory of evolution is right, without any proof?
Theists have no more proof that God does exist than atheists have proof that God does not exist.You're right, so far; except for ourselves. God always confirms His Word, but not to un-believers. He hasn't chosen to open that door, yet.
There is no possible way of proving the existence of God just as there is no possible way of disproving the existence of God.There is, you just might not be willing to subject yourself to any.
And in fact there is no possible way of proving or disproving God's existence. You only say that because you haven't seen the light, yet.

PureX
September 20th, 2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Obviously you didn't read the post.

They had Jewish and pagan sources speaking of Christ (even if it was from a negative point of view which makes it even more genuine). Anyone can "speak of Christ". That doesn't say anything about the existence of Jesus. All it says is that people believed he existed and that he was the Christ.

Speaking OF Jesus is not speaking TO Jesus, the physical man. We have no evidence of the physical existence of Jesus. We only have evidence of people believing in the physical existence of Jesus, but who had no direct experience of the physical Jesus to offer us as evidence.

jjjg
September 20th, 2004, 05:48 PM
They "speak of the existence of Christ" and they do not say he was the messiah but that he was some insurgent walking around sturring up trouble.

It is like anything else in history, you usually have to piece together the puzzle and look at all sources.

We know there was a Caiphas from the records and we know the was a Pilate. We know there was a John The Baptist and even his burial ground as well as the apostles.

The indirect evidence is overwhelming and is more important than people's personal testimony which can be exagerated.

There is more proof that Christ did exist than didn't as his influence on history shows.

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 07:37 PM
Just like the mere fact that Jesus was described to men, because He would be able to give them eternal life; not because those telling the story wanted anyone to think more highly of them. Had that been their goal, they'd have certainly left out the part where they denied Him or didn't understand what He was doing. They'd have painted themselves in a better light. They were writing truth, and that is what Christians do. We admit to our sin, which, in turn, helps others who are in a similar situation to what we encountered.


Do a little research into the political climate surrounding the authorship of the gospels, and the goals of the groups responsible for them. All the "negative aspects" of the story have a purpose. They were written by a minority group, during war time, when the goal was to turn the "us/them" view of the Jews from macrocosmic to microcosmic.

c.moore
September 21st, 2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Anyone can "speak of Christ". That doesn't say anything about the existence of Jesus. All it says is that people believed he existed and that he was the Christ.

Speaking OF Jesus is not speaking TO Jesus, the physical man. We have no evidence of the physical existence of Jesus. We only have evidence of people believing in the physical existence of Jesus, but who had no direct experience of the physical Jesus to offer us as evidence.

This is the million dollar question and theory my mythology teacher asked and waiting for the answers.

God_Is_Truth
September 21st, 2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by c.moore

This is the million dollar question and theory my mythology teacher asked and waiting for the answers.

ask him if Julias Ceasar was a real person and why believes the way he does.

jjjg
September 21st, 2004, 04:13 PM
It takes faith to accept anything a "historian" jots down as true.

PureX
September 21st, 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by c.moore This is the million dollar question and theory my mythology teacher asked and waiting for the answers. I expect that he'll be waiting a long time.

But remember that BILLIONS of human beings have lived and died on this Earth without leaving behind any objective evidence that they had ever been here, individually. And in fact even with the mountain of information that is being developed about us these days, it will be very unlikely that any of it will still be around in two thousand years to attest to our own existence. So I'm not sure that your teacher is being completely fair in using the lack of objective evidence for Jesus' life as a way of suggesting that Jesus did not physically exist. (I don't know if he is doing this, but if so, I'd say it's somewhat desengenuous of him.)

Perhaps your teacher only trying to stress the point, though, of how much Jesus' life has become a myth over the centuries and how little we actually know about the man that has inspired so much respect, worship, mythical revelation and even idolatry. If so, this certainly would be a fair point to stress.

Aimiel
September 21st, 2004, 05:39 PM
There's far more evidence that Jesus is Who He and His followers said He is, than there is to the contrary. In point of fact, there is none that proves that He is not. The evidence of the four Gospels is far more proof than most people realize. The writings of Dr. Greenleaf, who was asked to weigh the evidence found in the four Gospels for himself, and prove or disprove Jesus' claims, are very interesting, at the very least. He did so, came to the conclusion that Jesus existed, was born of a virgin, taught in Israel, was crucified, buried and ressurrected, and then ascended. He promptly, upon discovering this evidence for himself, became Christian. :thumb:

-- Aimiel
_______________________________________________

He said: "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

"In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

"According to this rule, we must allow that in copying manuscripts, the Christians did not corrupt the text, since they must be presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. Now that we have fragments of manuscripts from as early as A.D. 130, we have excellent evidence that such a presumption is indeed justified.

"In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.7
A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.8

"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying upon the objector.9

"The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances.10

"After a witness is dead, and his moral character is forgotten, we can ascertain it only by a close inspection of his narrative, comparing its details with each other, and with contemporary accounts and collateral facts. This test is much more accurate than may at first be supposed. Every event which actually transpires, has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false." *1

Dr Greenleafs concluding statement included the following quote:

"It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact." *2

*1 Excerpts from, "The Bible and the Rules of Legal Evidence, " an article by Richard Riss, quoting Dr. Simon Greenleaf, a 'Royal Professor,' of Harvard Law School, also know as the top authority on evidence; one of the greatest American attorneys. Article here. (http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/evidences/29legal.html)

*2 Quoted from, "Histoicity of Christ," article, on: THIS website. (http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=255&ItemId=663)

firechyld
September 21st, 2004, 11:47 PM
It takes faith to accept anything a "historian" jots down as true.


When studying history, one is encouraged to question everything. That is the goal of the historian.

It's doubtful that any historian writes anything expecting it to be completely accepted by scholastic circles.

PureX
September 22nd, 2004, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.So ... we have to prove every work of fiction ever written is NOT true, or we must accept it as true until we do? That's ridiculous.

Also, as we have seen in our courst, some of the most unreliable evidence comes from eye-witnesses. The truth is that people understand what they see according to their ow expectations, and so when they tell what they saw, it inevitably ends up being biased by these expectations.

Originally posted by Aimiel "In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

"According to this rule, we must allow that in copying manuscripts, the Christians did not corrupt the text, since they must be presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. Now that we have fragments of manuscripts from as early as A.D. 130, we have excellent evidence that such a presumption is indeed justified."We know now days that this is simply wrong. This statement is itself the product of a bias that it's claiming does not exist.

Granite
September 22nd, 2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

ask him if Julias Ceasar was a real person and why believes the way he does.

Caesar's existence is well documented and no one's ever really tried claiming he was a virgin born messiah.

Any extra-biblical references to Christ were either a) inserted by Christians or b) second-hand at best. This doesn't "prove" anything one way or another; but the litmus test for Caesar's existence and Jesus' are apples and oranges.

God_Is_Truth
September 22nd, 2004, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Caesar's existence is well documented and no one's ever really tried claiming he was a virgin born messiah.

Any extra-biblical references to Christ were either a) inserted by Christians or b) second-hand at best. This doesn't "prove" anything one way or another; but the litmus test for Caesar's existence and Jesus' are apples and oranges.

how is it well documented?

Granite
September 22nd, 2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how is it well documented?

I'm not gonna put you through a history lesson, GIT. Either do your own homework or stop stalling.

jjjg
September 22nd, 2004, 07:31 PM
It is actually no different. The Romans documented Ceaser well because they held Ceaser with high esteem. The Christians held Christ with high esteem so they documented him well.

Because of the standing of Ceaser as emperor records of people who knew him when he was alive was probably greater whereas Christianity gradually caught on but the apostles knew him first hand.

They also thought Ceaser was a God.

Aimiel
September 23rd, 2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by PureX

So ... we have to prove every work of fiction ever written is NOT true, or we must accept it as true until we do? That's ridiculous. Of course it is, but we aren't talking about fiction. The Gospel is considered the 'cornerstone' of truth. When people say, "That's Gospel," it means that what was said can be 'taken to the bank' so-to-speak. It is true, verily, in other words. When history dis-proves a single one of the facts recorded in The Bible, you may have an argument, but, until then, you don't. None ever will, and that's 'Gospel.'

PureX
September 23rd, 2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel Of course it is, but we aren't talking about fiction.You were talking about how we decide if a story is fiction or not. Your quote claimed that we should take every story as historically accurate until it's proven otherwise. This is clearly ridiculous. But your quote overlooked this absurdity in an effort to claim that it's not the responsibility of the story-teller to prove his story, but is the responsibility of the listener to disprove it, or to automatically believe it. And this is of course equally absurd.

It's the responsibility of the claimant to prove the claim, not the responsibility of everyone else to disprove it. This is just plain common sense.

Originally posted by Aimiel The Gospel is considered the 'cornerstone' of truth. When people say, "That's Gospel," it means that what was said can be 'taken to the bank' so-to-speak. It is true, verily, in other words. When history dis-proves a single one of the facts recorded in The Bible, you may have an argument, but, until then, you don't. None ever will, and that's 'Gospel.' What people believe is irrelevant to what actually is. The "gospel truth" that everyone agreed on not soong ago was that the world was flat, and that the universe revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth is 6000 years old. But in time these "gospel truths" have been shown to be untrue. And just as these "gospel truths" have changed over time, so will many others.

Just because we believe something to be true doesn't make it true. Just because we wrote down that we believed it, it still doesn't make it true. Just because we tell others that it's true, and they believe it, too, it still doesn't make it true. That's just the way it is. Faith doesn't dictate truth.

Aimiel
September 23rd, 2004, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by PureX

You were talking about how we decide if a story is fiction or not. No, I wasn't.
Your quote claimed that we should take every story as historically accurate until it's proven otherwise.That was one of the premises of the attorney, in arguing his case. If you don't agree, perhaps you should take it up with him. I merely posted his words, which I believe are interesting. I don't propose to defend his position, merely agree that his findings, that Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead and that He is God, in The Flesh, are correct.
It's the responsibility of the claimant to prove the claim, not the responsibility of everyone else to disprove it. This is just plain common sense. I believe that is why Jesus said that His Works speak for themselves. The lame walked, those who were blind from birth received sight, the dead were raised to life, etc., etc..
What people believe is irrelevant to what actually is.That's true. What you have swallowed, though you believe it, has no effect upon Truth.
The "gospel truth" that everyone agreed on not soong ago was that the world was flat, and that the universe revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth is 6000 years old. But in time these "gospel truths" have been shown to be untrue. And just as these "gospel truths" have changed over time, so will many others. I don't believe that the 'young earth' theory has been disproven, yet. I also don't believe that any scientific or historic fact in The Word of God has ever been disproved.
Just because we believe something to be true doesn't make it true.You're being redundant, but still correct.
Just because we wrote down that we believed it, it still doesn't make it true.This is not what was written down in The Word, when people recorded events. They recorded what they saw, and things said by The One that they saw and also touched with their hands.
Just because we tell others that it's true, and they believe it, too, it still doesn't make it true.Just because you deny it doesn't make it any less true, either. Truth is true, whether anyone on earth believes or not, and that's the truth.

God_Is_Truth
September 23rd, 2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

I'm not gonna put you through a history lesson, GIT. Either do your own homework or stop stalling.

it's not homework :D

my point was really, why do people believe what was written about Julias Ceaser and not about Jesus?

Granite
September 23rd, 2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

it's not homework :D

my point was really, why do people believe what was written about Julias Ceaser and not about Jesus?

For one thing, Caesar's existence is documented by contemporary historians and archeology. Neither can be said for Christ. Josephus' comment was inserted by an overzealous Christian. The "Chrestus" reference does not indicate Jesus, either.

Without contemporary history or archeology on the side of Christianity, it means Christians are the ones with a very long row to hoe.

PureX
September 23rd, 2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

it's not homework :D

my point was really, why do people believe what was written about Julias Ceaser and not about Jesus? Many of the things that were written about the Roman ceasers were written and depicted by artists and scribes who witnessed the events they wrote about. These events were also corroberated by the documented events of many other people who also had direct interaction with these ceasers. The real difference is that there are lots of different sources of documentation that was produced by people who had direct interaction with the subject.

In the case of Jesus, however, the documents that we have were not written by anyone who had direct interaction with Jesus. All we have are copies of copies of documents that no longer exist that were supposed to have been written by people who had direct interaction, but even this supposition is unlikely given the contents of the texts. Three of the four gospels are obviously copies made from a similar or even the same original. Yet they each are purported to have been written by different apostles. This in itself is an obvious deceit and even if their source text was an eye-witness account, it represents only one single supposed witness and since this witness has already been misrepresented it tend to detract from even it's supposed credibility. So really all we have are a couple of copies of some missing documents that are dubiously claimed to have been written by eye-witnesses. And there is nothing else. All the other supposed corroberating evidence documentation only documents that some people believed what these first documents were used to claim. But that corroberates nothing.

I'm not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I'm just pointing out that there really is almost no evidence at all that he did actually exist, whereas there is lots of corroberating evidence that Julius Ceaser did actually exist.

Zakath
September 23rd, 2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

it's not homework :D

my point was really, why do people believe what was written about Julias Ceaser and not about Jesus? And another reason is that I've never heard anyone say, "and now we'll take up the offering" after discussing the life of Julius Caesar.

:chuckle:

God_Is_Truth
September 23rd, 2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

For one thing, Caesar's existence is documented by contemporary historians and archeology. Neither can be said for Christ. Josephus' comment was inserted by an overzealous Christian. The "Chrestus" reference does not indicate Jesus, either.

Without contemporary history or archeology on the side of Christianity, it means Christians are the ones with a very long row to hoe.

how are you defining "contemporary"?

God_Is_Truth
September 23rd, 2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Many of the things that were written about the Roman ceasers were written and depicted by artists and scribes who witnessed the events they wrote about.

how do you know that? why do you believe they were witnesses?



These events were also corroberated by the documented events of many other people who also had direct interaction with these ceasers.

again, why do you believe that this is so?



The real difference is that there are lots of different sources of documentation that was produced by people who had direct interaction with the subject.

according to who? what makes this true?



In the case of Jesus, however, the documents that we have were not written by anyone who had direct interaction with Jesus.

John and Paul weren't eyewitnesses? :confused:



All we have are copies of copies of documents that no longer exist that were supposed to have been written by people who had direct interaction, but even this supposition is unlikely given the contents of the texts

there are many things that are unlikely in this world, but that doesn't mean they are any less true.



Three of the four gospels are obviously copies made from a similar or even the same original. Yet they each are purported to have been written by different apostles.

they aren't word for word so obviously someone else filled in some details to which they can make claim for.



This in itself is an obvious deceit

not necessarily. perhaps one liked the way the other was written and wanted to include that part in his own account if it was going to be distributed in a different region than the first. it does not necessitate deceit.



and even if their source text was an eye-witness account, it represents only one single supposed witness and since this witness has already been misrepresented it tend to detract from even it's supposed credibility.

Paul says there were over 500 direct eye witnesses at one time. surely they could have spoke up if the accounts were misleading or incorrect.



I'm not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I'm just pointing out that there really is almost no evidence at all that he did actually exist, whereas there is lots of corroberating evidence that Julius Ceaser did actually exist.

why do you believe the stuff written about Julias Ceaser?

OMEGA
September 23rd, 2004, 02:36 PM
If JESUS did not exist then We have no HOPE and

might as well eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

(1 Cor 15:30 KJV) And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

(1 Cor 15:31 KJV) I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

(1 Cor 15:32 KJV) If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

PureX
September 23rd, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth how do you know that? why do you believe they were witnesses?I don't know it. Our grasp of history isn't and can never be absolute. All we can do is assess the evidence and how it's corroberated, and decide what's the most probable scenario. The claim that Jusius Ceaser is God, born of a virgin, and ascended into heaven is a very unlikely claim, and so will require a huge pile of evidence to be accepted by a reasonable person as probable. The claim that Julius Ceaser was emporer of the Romam empire at a certain period of time is not an unlikely claim, and so does not require such a vast amount of supporting evidence to become acceptable. And we do have a fair amount of evidence that suggests that he was an emperor of the Roman Empire for a period of time. Remember that we are not after absolute knowledge, because that's not possible for us, we're only deciding what is a probable historical assertion.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth John and Paul weren't eyewitnesses? We don't know who wrote the document called "the Gospel of John" or when they wrote it. And Paul was not an eye-witness as he lived many years after Jesus supposed death.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth there are many things that are unlikely in this world, but that doesn't mean they are any less true.The word unlikely does, however, still mean unlikely. Certainly, the improbable does happen, but most of the time it does not happen - which is why it's considered improbable. And we aren't just talking unlikely, here, we're talking about phenomena that has never been seen to happen by anyone ever! We're talking about claims that a man was a god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. These are claims that defy all known limitations of physics, and of life and of probability as any of us has ever experienced them. To accept such a claim as probable would require massive evidence from a reasonable person to accept as a probable historical event. And we have almost no evidence whatever. All we have are a whole lot of people have chosen to believe these things happened without any evidence. Which do you think is really more likely: that people tend to believe things without evidence simply because they want them to be true, or that a man-god born of a virgin died and returned from the dead and ascended into heaven?

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth they aren't word for word so obviously someone else filled in some details to which they can make claim for. They aren't word for word because different people copied them at different times, and "interpreted" or embellished the stories as they did so.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth not necessarily. perhaps one liked the way the other was written and wanted to include that part in his own account if it was going to be distributed in a different region than the first. it does not necessitate deceit.That's called copying someone else's supposed "witness". And you should spend some time studying this stuff, because you don't seem to understand that "Matthew", "Mark" and "Luke" were not written by the people for whom they're named. And "John" probably isn't, either. Arguing with me is foolish until you go and find out what the people who really study this stuff think. And I don't mean some web site for Christian apologetics, I mean find out from real textual scholars and archeologists what is the general concensus about who may have written these documents and when.

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth Paul says there were over 500 direct eye witnesses at one time. surely they could have spoke up if the accounts were misleading or incorrect.If these supposed eye-witnesses did not exist, then they certainly could not have come forward to deny Paul's claim, now could they. You are trying to argue from a negative: that we have to prove a claim untrue, when in fact this is irrational. The claimant has the responsibility for proving his assertion, not the other way round - especially when the claim being made is so improbable (like claims of events that defy the laws of reason and physics).

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth why do you believe the stuff written about Julias Ceaser? Because the claim that Julius Ceaser was an emporer of Rome is not physically impossible, is not unreasonable, and has a lot of corroberating documentation. It's probable that this documentation is more or less accurate. I do not believe, however, that Julius Ceaser was born of a virgin, performed miracles, or was a god-man as was sometimes claimed (and believed and written of) by people of his time. For me to believe that probable would require a whole lot more corroberation because it's so much more an unlikely claim.

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how are you defining "contemporary"?

GIT, you can either keep playing dumb or try to have a real discussion.

Caesar's biographers lived during his life time. His existence (and that of Augustus, Napoleon, etc.) was documented while he lived. The same cannot be said of Christ. Jesus' works, miracles, the resurrection of dead saints at his crucifixion, the eclipse of the sun accompanying his death--all of this and more does not have a scrap of proof from Jewish and Roman historians of his own time. History is simply silent on the subject of Jesus' existence.

That said, the burden of proof is on Christians to point to any bit of history as "evidence" that this messiah actually lived.

Turbo
September 24th, 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

GIT, you can either keep playing dumb or try to have a real discussion.I may be mistaken, but I think GIT was asking whether you meant Caesar's comtemporaries or ours. But you already clarified.


Caesar's biographers lived during his life time. His existence (and that of Augustus, Napoleon, etc.) was documented while he lived. The same cannot be said of Christ. Jesus' works, miracles, the resurrection of dead saints at his crucifixion, the eclipse of the sun accompanying his death--all of this and more does not have a scrap of proof from Jewish and Roman historians of his own time. History is simply silent on the subject of Jesus' existence. What about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

I may be mistaken, but I think GIT was asking whether you meant Caesar's comtemporaries or ours. But you already clarified.

What about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

What about them? Even Christian scholars acknowledge it's very doubtful that the gospels were written by these four. In any event the gospels were hardly "contemporary"; they were more like memoirs written long after the fact.

Aside from the gospels there is nothing outside of scripture backing the historical case for Christ.

jjjg
September 24th, 2004, 09:03 AM
I told you, the same case can be made against Ceaser as Christ.

Contemporary historians look at indirect evidence for support as well direct evidence. As for direct evidence is the Roman Catholic Church which is 2000 years old.

The old Roman Empire is long dead the church is still alive with all its records. Who has more valid backing?

Granite, you keep going on about direct evidence ? You have never studied Roman history have you? It is all fitting pieces of a puzzles together.

Remeber, Europe went through the Dark Ages. Civilizations was destroyed. The library at Alexandra was destroyed. If there was any remnants it would have just been copies made by monks in Ireland.:shut: :shut: :shut:

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

I told you, the same case can be made against Ceaser as Christ.

Contemporary historians look at indirect evidence for support as well direct evidence. As for direct evidence is the Roman Catholic Church which is 2000 years old.

The old Roman Empire is long dead the church is still alive with all its records. Who has more valid backing?

Granite, you keep going on about direct evidence ? You have never studied Roman history have you? It is all fitting pieces of a puzzles together.

Remeber, Europe went through the Dark Ages. Civilizations was destroyed. The library at Alexandra was destroyed. If there was any remnants it would have just been copies made by monks in Ireland.:shut: :shut: :shut:

Figures such as Napoleon and Caesar have contemporary--DURING THEIR LIFETIME--biographical documentation. This cannot be said for Christ. Period. Nothing in the span of history compiled by Jewish and Roman historians who lived during Christ's lifetime mentioned him once. That's just a fact. The Jesus story was compiled long after his death and was embellished from there.

Also, implying I've never studied Roman history is dense, naive, and pointless. Don't go there again. Patronize someone else.

Glad you brought up the Dark Ages. Remember who inflicted that glorious period of history on mankind: the church. Remember who burned a big chunk of the Alexandria library in AD 341: Christians did.

Aimiel
September 24th, 2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Caesar's biographers lived during his life time. His existence (and that of Augustus, Napoleon, etc.) was documented while he lived. The same cannot be said of Christ. Jesus' works, miracles, the resurrection of dead saints at his crucifixion, the eclipse of the sun accompanying his death--all of this and more does not have a scrap of proof from Jewish and Roman historians of his own time. History is simply silent on the subject of Jesus' existence.

That said, the burden of proof is on Christians to point to any bit of history as "evidence" that this messiah actually lived. The evidence of The Gospels has been weighed, and the four who wrote them were the Apostles that knew Jesus, and that fact has never been conclusively proven otherwise.

Paul was a Roman citizen, and he gave us the scoop on The One that we're able to get testimony from: The Holy Spirit, Who is able to give us BETTER than 'eye-witness' testimony of The Word of God.

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

The evidence of The Gospels has been weighed, and the four who wrote them were the Apostles that knew Jesus, and that fact has never been conclusively proven otherwise.

Paul was a Roman citizen, and he gave us the scoop on The One that we're able to get testimony from: The Holy Spirit, Who is able to give us BETTER than 'eye-witness' testimony of The Word of God.

Aimiel, I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

The authorship of the gospels is very much up for debate; always has been, always will be. Justin Martyr didn't even cite the gospels in his career, and neither did other church fathers. The "authorship" was rubberstamped by the Church of Rome but is no where near a sure thing.

Paul, since you brought it up, told us absolutely nothing about Jesus.

jjjg
September 24th, 2004, 10:49 AM
At least you admit some of the pagan documents were destroyed and it wasn't the library of Alexandria. Ceaser did that himself. What documents there were fell into ruin.

The Dark Ages were not glorious at all and the church was around hundreds of years before the Dark Ages. Who kept civilizations records alive? The Church.

The Church was the life blood of Europe for almost 2000 years. Who kept any records that we have alive? The Church. Why should the church records about Christianity be more in doubt than old pagan records that we piece together?

How do you draw the conclusion that the church history somehow doesn't speak of Christ in his lifetime?

The Church itself is the only direct link we have to the past 2000 years.

So you've studied Roman history. What are the direct evidence of Julius Ceaser? Tell us so you can educate us.

jjjg
September 24th, 2004, 10:51 AM
That whole post to Aimiel, are you sure you don't want to withdraw that whole post before I tear it to pieces?

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

At least you admit some of the pagan documents were destroyed and it wasn't the library of Alexandria. Ceaser did that himself. What documents there were fell into ruin.

The Dark Ages were not glorious at all and the church was around hundreds of years before the Dark Ages. Who kept civilizations records alive? The Church.

The Church was the life blood of Europe for almost 2000 years. Who kept any records that we have alive? The Church. Why should the church records about Christianity be more in doubt than old pagan records that we piece together?

How do you draw the conclusion that the church history somehow doesn't speak of Christ in his lifetime?

The Church itself is the only direct link we have to the past 2000 years.

So you've studied Roman history. What are the direct evidence of Julius Ceaser? Tell us so you can educate us.

Many of the records kept by the church are legends and inventions (although if you choose to believe the myths about the various saints or what have you, knock yourself out). In any event, records kept by a regime that murdered and tortured its enemies aren't the kind I'd bet my life on.

Until contemporaneous records kept by Jewish or Roman historians surfaces describing Christ, there is simply nothing to prove that he existed. Not an inscription, not a peep. The dead wandered around Jerusalem after his death. Not a word from anyone, outside Matthew's gospel. There was an eclipse in Jerusalem. There's no mention of it outside scripture. Herod supposedly murdered the innocents. Not even Herod's enemies mentioned this supposed atrocity.

Why not?

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

That whole post to Aimiel, are you sure you don't want to withdraw that whole post before I tear it to pieces?

Are all Canadians this pompous or is it just you?

Aimiel
September 24th, 2004, 10:57 AM
Granite,

You base your beliefs (or lack of them) upon doubt and heresay, I'll base mine on what I find to be true. God's Word is Truth, whether or not you believe it.

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Granite,

You base your beliefs (or lack of them) upon doubt and heresay, I'll base mine on what I find to be true. God's Word is Truth, whether or not you believe it.

"Hearsay" from who? If anybody is believing in hearsay, Aimiel, it's you. All you know about Jesus was written at least thirty years after his death and was subsequently embellished and blended with regional myths. If you're not willing to even consider the possibility you might be wrong, I'm not the one with the problem.

What you find to be true is okay. What I find to be true is okay as well. We all find something.

Zakath
September 24th, 2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

The evidence of The Gospels has been weighed, and the four who wrote them were the Apostles that knew Jesus, and that fact has never been conclusively proven otherwise.There is no evidence that at least one of the gospel writers (Luke) ever met Jesus.

It is also commonly believed that the author of Mark was in the same predicament.

The allegedly "eyewitness" evidence turns out to be mostly second-hand or even further removed from the scene.

jjjg
September 24th, 2004, 12:24 PM
Obviously, you can't back your claims up so you go for the old Inquisition, Crusades jugular (lots of that was fabricated myth) and like the Romans and Jewish people didn't murder. I already showed records that the pagans and Jews kept that refer to Christ.

You must have had a pretty weak faith to delude yourself to this nonsense.

I think you were probably Evangelical or Baptist and you realized that there was no escaping that the Catholic Church was the original church and that ticked you off pretty bad.

You prove that they are legends.

jjjg
September 24th, 2004, 12:25 PM
How about Matthew, Zakath?

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Obviously, you can't back your claims up so you go for the old Inquisition, Crusades jugular (lots of that was fabricated myth) and like the Romans and Jewish people didn't murder. I already showed records that the pagans and Jews kept that refer to Christ.

You must have had a pretty weak faith to delude yourself to this nonsense.

I think you were probably Evangelical or Baptist and you realized that there was no escaping that the Catholic Church was the original church and that ticked you off pretty bad.

You prove that they are legends.

Josephus's reference to Christ is a forgery.

Suetonius, when speaking of "Chrestus," isn't talking about Jesus, either. So...back to the drawing board.

By the way, since I was neither an evangelical or a Baptist, you may want to stop playing mind reader.

Zakath
September 24th, 2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

How about Matthew, Zakath? What about him?

:think:

Perhaps I worded my prior post poorly.

What I intended to indicate was that at least one, perhaps two, of those traditionally assumed to have written the gospels likely never met Jesus face-to-face.

I hope that clears up my point...

jjjg
September 24th, 2004, 12:35 PM
Zakath, Matthew met Jesus. So yo what was the point of your argument in post 211.

Prove it Granite. Sounds like your other unwarrented comments.

Were you Catholic?

Zakath
September 24th, 2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Zakath, Matthew met Jesus. So yo what was the point of your argument in post 211.I never claimed he didn't. Did you read post 215? Does that clear up the misunderstanding?

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Zakath, Matthew met Jesus. So yo what was the point of your argument in post 211.

Prove it Granite. Sounds like your other unwarrented comments.

Were you Catholic?

Prove "what," exactly? Josephus' comment is not only completely uncharacteristic of a practicing Jew (which he was), but also incongruous with the context. In addition, considering Josephus devoted pages of his history to common rebels and thieves, the fact that he gives the astounding Jesus a single paragraph is totally uncharacteristic. This passage in his histories is not cited by the church fathers. It's the language of a Christian--not a fervent Jew.

"Chrestus" means (roughly; Zakath, may want to correct me on this) "the good." It does not point specifically to a messiah, or to Jesus. And Suetonious placed him during the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54).

Zakath
September 24th, 2004, 01:04 PM
granite's got it correct.

The term chrestus means "good" and was used by pagans in the early Roman empire to refer to the founder of Christianity without making any reference to exactly who that founder actually was. They referred to the followers as Chrestians (those who are good). In other words, there was no real knowledge of who the founder of Christian sect was, merely that someone founded it and the words "Christos" and "Chrestus" sounded close enough to the greek ear that the substution took place easily since most pagans did not believe in the Jewish "Christos" or messiah...


The reference by Suetonius is to an expulsion of Christians from Rome because "Chrestus" was inciting rebellion against the empire.

The major problem with ascibing his quote to describe Jesus of Nazareth is the timing. The expulsion occured under Claudius around CE 49, quite a number of years after Jesus death, and refers to the expulsion of Jews, not Christians. It is also interesting to note that Paul, the first apostle to allegedly visit Rome, probably did not make it there until after CE 60.

The Latin text reads this way:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.

Any of our Latin scholars who might care to take a crack at a translation??

jjjg
September 24th, 2004, 01:06 PM
The link I supplied covered all this plus other pagan and Jewish writers.

Granite
September 24th, 2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

The link I supplied covered all this plus other pagan and Jewish writers.

"Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): 'Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit' (Clau., xxv)."

Okay. So strike Suetonius; he wasn't referring to Jesus.

"Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition."

Pliny proves Rome disliked Christians. No revelation there.

As for Tacitus: The word "Christian" would have been inaccurate, as the phrase wasn't coined yet. In addition, Christian scholars did not even cite Tacitus until four centuries later.

jjjg
September 24th, 2004, 01:35 PM
Heh, basically yes I'm getting a little bored of this discussion here's the link. I could discuss points you bring up from them.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

Aimiel
September 24th, 2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

There is no evidence that at least one of the gospel writers (Luke) ever met Jesus.I'm sorry you feel that way. The majority of scholars not only agree that Luke wrote Luke, but also that he wrote Acts: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#II
It is also commonly believed that the author of Mark was in the same predicament.Same with Mark, and most (which is a term that is more often used to derive 'common' thought or concensus) scholars agree on this one, as well.

"A. The Author
There are three pieces of evidence to consider: title, external evidence, and internal evidence.

1. The Title
As with Matthew’s Gospel, no manuscripts which contain Mark affirm authorship by anyone other than Mark.1 As with Matthew, this is short of proof of Markan authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition of Markan authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century.

2. External Evidence
“So strong was the early Christian testimony that Mark was the author of this gospel that we need do little more than mention this attestation.?2 It is cited by Papias, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon (most likely), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Jerome. Further, this testimony is universal in connecting this gospel with Peter. Papias, for example, writes:3" -- Quote taken from: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1093
The allegedly "eyewitness" evidence turns out to be mostly second-hand or even further removed from the scene. Your conjecture is disallowed, due to you not only being further removed, but extremely prejudiced, as well as basing authorship decisions on texts in antiquity on a 'lack of evidence,' without weighing the evidence that has been examined, re-examined, questioned and never being disproven yet by men far more learned and studied than yourself. You dismiss the work of almost 2,000 years of atheistic 'witch-hunts' as proving nothing. I believe the mere fact that no proof of any of The Word of God being ever proved historically or scientifically inaccurate to be one of The Bible's greatest achievements. God didn't even have to work up a sweat on this one. :chuckle:

Aimiel
September 24th, 2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.
He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.

c.moore
September 25th, 2004, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

ask him if Julias Ceasar was a real person and why believes the way he does.

He doesn`t answer stupid , non -sense questions.

c.moore
September 25th, 2004, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

It takes faith to accept anything a "historian" jots down as true.

does it take belief, or is the facts and knowing A better way for evidence?

c.moore
September 25th, 2004, 03:26 AM
Aimiel

HAVE you heard of Osirus,Adonis, Attis, Tammuz Krisna?
These are god`s who have were killed buried and resurrected and was just like Jesus and have the same story of Christ.
This can be historically found and proven.

c.moore
September 25th, 2004, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Caesar's existence is well documented and no one's ever really tried claiming he was a virgin born messiah.

Any extra-biblical references to Christ were either a) inserted by Christians or b) second-hand at best. This doesn't "prove" anything one way or another; but the litmus test for Caesar's existence and Jesus' are apples and oranges.

That is logical!:thumb:

c.moore
September 25th, 2004, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by OMEGA

If JESUS did not exist then We have no HOPE and

might as well eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

(1 Cor 15:30 KJV) And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

(1 Cor 15:31 KJV) I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

(1 Cor 15:32 KJV) If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

My mythológy professor said if peter pan was real or super man , then the world miight have hope also.

Granite
September 25th, 2004, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by c.moore

Aimiel

HAVE you heard of Osirus,Adonis, Attis, Tammuz Krisna?
These are god`s who have were killed buried and resurrected and was just like Jesus and have the same story of Christ.
This can be historically found and proven.

The idea of a tri-une god man who is virgin born, dies, and is resurrected is nothing new at all. This same myth has been played out in human history for millenia.

Christianity had the fortune of being rubber stamped and embraced by the world's most powerful man, because of the similarities between Constantine's sun worship and the Christ story.

c.moore
September 25th, 2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

The idea of a tri-une god man who is virgin born, dies, and is resurrected is nothing new at all. This same myth has been played out in human history for millenia.

Christianity had the fortune of being rubber stamped and embraced by the world's most powerful man, because of the similarities between Constantine's sun worship and the Christ story.

But is the similarities means they are clearly the same only has been changed in some points but the same beliefs, and same rituals and doctrine of pagans??

jjjg
September 25th, 2004, 02:35 PM
C.Moore, to rule out the existence of Christ, you have rule out the existence of all the apostles, Mary, Joseph, the two Herods, Pilate, Caiphas etc.

You'd have to rule out the whole Christian movement.

Osiris and the rest were just myths with nothing to back them up like Romulus and Remus were.

It would be an absurdity.

Aimiel
September 25th, 2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by c.moore

HAVE you heard of Osirus,Adonis, Attis, Tammuz Krisna?Yes, Osirus was the mythical god of the underworld, the 'lord' of darkness, to whom the Ramses character, played by Yul Brenner in Cecil B. DeMille's movie, "The Ten Commandments," for the life of his son. He couldn't answer because he is a myth, which can neither see or hear, since he doesn't really exist.

Adonis, whose name means 'the lord,' was reputed to be a castrated god, born in Bethlehem, of a virgin, who then married Aphrodite upon his death, and who is said to be ressurrected every spring, in the blossoms of flowers. Sounds like an imitation of Truth, with too much myth thrown in.

Attis is reputed to be a myth which is 6,000 years older than Jesus, which would actually place him in the midst of 'the deep,' because the earth had not been created yet.

For Tammuz, see Adonis, above, their names were interchangeable.

Krisna, well, according to THIS WEBSITE (http://www.jesus-christ.ws/) JESUS, BUDDHA & KRISHNA ARE ONE!

You have to realize that a lot of the folklore that we have is doctored or tempered by tales that pretend to go back to B.C. times, for the sake of their apparent 'validity.'
These are god`s who have were killed buried and resurrected and was just like Jesus and have the same story of Christ.

This can be historically found and proven. They have no basis in fact, which truly can be historically proven.

jjjg
September 25th, 2004, 02:55 PM
The Talmud, for instance, confirms the historicity of Jesus and the Jewish origin of the primitive church.

A comparison of the gospels with the New Testament letters and Christian literature of the early second century reveals the unique character of the gospels; they show no literary dependance, and their vocabulary, diction, and basic ideas indicate that they originated in Jewish-Semetic environment, not in the world of Hellenistic speculations.

Presenting the message of the Primitive Church, the gospels are more than mere documents of the beliefs of the early Christianity; they also contain the testimony of contemporaries of Jesus bore to the life of Jesus and his public ministry.

As historical documents they are therefore to be interpreted according to historical methods.

c.moore
September 26th, 2004, 03:53 PM
here is something my teacher teaches , and told me to investegate found here:

Adam and Eve, Original Sin and Mythology

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/dennis2.htm

http://www.truthseekers.freeserve.co.uk/truth/tr7blasphemous.html

jjjg
September 27th, 2004, 02:03 AM
Moore, Just out of curiosity. Is you teacher Christian? What is he/she getting at?

Berean Todd
September 27th, 2004, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

Moore, Just out of curiosity. Is you teacher Christian? What is he/she getting at?

Judging by those links that Moore posted, recomended by his teacher, I don't think there is any way at all that his professor could be a Christian.

Granite
September 27th, 2004, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

C.Moore, to rule out the existence of Christ, you have rule out the existence of all the apostles, Mary, Joseph, the two Herods, Pilate, Caiphas etc.

You'd have to rule out the whole Christian movement.

Osiris and the rest were just myths with nothing to back them up like Romulus and Remus were.

It would be an absurdity.

Not at all. Caiaphas' ossuary has been found; contemporary history confirms the reign of the Herods and of Pilate (though, since you mention it, not a scrap of history records Herod murdering infants).

Apples and oranges.

Granite
September 27th, 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

The Talmud, for instance, confirms the historicity of Jesus and the Jewish origin of the primitive church.

A comparison of the gospels with the New Testament letters and Christian literature of the early second century reveals the unique character of the gospels; they show no literary dependance, and their vocabulary, diction, and basic ideas indicate that they originated in Jewish-Semetic environment, not in the world of Hellenistic speculations.

Presenting the message of the Primitive Church, the gospels are more than mere documents of the beliefs of the early Christianity; they also contain the testimony of contemporaries of Jesus bore to the life of Jesus and his public ministry.

As historical documents they are therefore to be interpreted according to historical methods.

The Talmud confirms the second-hand information available to the rabbis who compiled the Talmud. Nothing more, nothing less. In any event many rabbis don't believe Christ existed at all, so they'd be surprised to hear that their holy book confirms what Christians knew all along.

As the gospels that we have today have no provenance or proof of authorship, they cannot be considered first-hand accounts.

jjjg
September 27th, 2004, 09:07 AM
granite, I quoted this right out of Collier's encyclopedia. So you can find any excuse you want. Objective historians do view it as historical doctrine and study it as such.

By the way, they found Peter's burial, and John the Baptist too. Finding out these people including Caiphas existed add to the knowledge that Christ existed.:jump: :jump:

jjjg
September 27th, 2004, 09:10 AM
Apples and oranges?

Jesus life and scripture has been studied more by historians than anyone in history and if all indirect and direct (yes the New Testament is historical doctrine) overwhelmingly point to a person named Jesus.

Granite
September 27th, 2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

granite, I quoted this right out of Collier's encyclopedia. So you can find any excuse you want. Objective historians do view it as historical doctrine and study it as such.

By the way, they found Peter's burial, and John the Baptist too. Finding out these people including Caiphas existed add to the knowledge that Christ existed.:jump: :jump:

Oh. Glad to see you at least cite your sources.:rolleyes:

This isn't an excuse, it's a fact. Not all rabbis agree with what others say about the Talmud, anymore than Christian theologians agree.

Peter's "tomb" is a legend concocted (understandably) by the Church of Rome. No more weight than the Turin Shroud, the birthplace of Jesus, or other "finds" the Catholic Church fed their followers over the centuries.

Granite
September 27th, 2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

Apples and oranges?

Jesus life and scripture has been studied more by historians than anyone in history and if all indirect and direct (yes the New Testament is historical doctrine) overwhelmingly point to a person named Jesus.

You make a very good point: it is historical DOCTRINE, not historical FACT.

jjjg
September 27th, 2004, 03:23 PM
What do you mean site my sources. I haven't seen you sight anything except sweeping comments that you are a historian of ancient Rome. You haven't backed up any of your claims.

I should of said historical documents. What are historical facts to you Granite.

They have found Peter's burial place in the catacombs under the Vatican.

keypurr
September 27th, 2004, 09:19 PM
My post from another thread

Keypurr Response:
It seems to me if God was going to build a church with a figurehead like Peter, he would document it in scripture. The Bible only says he preached around the eastern side of the Med Sea. Now they say they have found his bones in Jerusalem. Peter was claimed to be the first Bishop of Rome and executed by Nero. However scripture says he was in Jerusalem, 1800 miles away at that time.

Interesting words from the web site below.

The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story. The book of the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius, which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24). Soon after, about the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 A.D. and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9). Paul tells us that three years after his conversion in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 A.D., fourteen years later, he again went up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter being mentioned. Soon after that he met Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, "Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," Gal. 2:11. The evidence is abundant, the truth is clear from the Scriptures which have never failed. It would be breathtaking to read of the boldness of Paul in dealing with Peter. Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope and lived (except in these days when everybody seems to withstand him). If Peter were Pope it would have been no different. Paul does not only withstand Peter but rebukes him and blames him of being at fault.

Read the entire story here. It is very interesting. You don't have to believe it. But some in the church do.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

OMEGA
September 27th, 2004, 09:30 PM
Just wait 10 years.

c.moore
September 28th, 2004, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

Moore, Just out of curiosity. Is you teacher Christian? What is he/she getting at?

This is what he is getting at:

Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent. Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing." Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the Common Era


In order to understand what is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact--the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, however, there is no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.


When confronted by a Christian missionary, one should immediately point out that the very existence of Jesus has not been proven. When missionaries argue they usually appeal to emotions rather than to reason and they will attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus. The usual response is something like "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth?" A popular variation of this response used especially against Jews is "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus like denying the Holocaust?"

One should then point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named, while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus.
To be perfectly thorough you should take time to do some research on the historical personalities mentioned by the missionaries and present hard evidence of their existence. At the same time you should challenge the missionaries to provide similar evidence of Jesus's existence. You should point out that although the existence of Julius Caesar, or Queen Elizabeth, etc., is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he was ever crucified.

To sum up, there is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide.It is this fact which puts Jesus on a different level to established historical personalities. If the missionaries use the "Holocaust reply," you should point out that the Holocaust is well-documented and that there are numerous eyewitness reports. It should be pointed out that most of the people who deny the Holocaust have turned out to be antisemitic hate-mongers with fraudulent credentials. On the other hand, millions of honest people in Asia, who make up the majority of the world's population, have failed to be convinced by the Christian story of Jesus since there is no compelling evidence for its authenticity. The missionaries will insist that the story of Jesus is a well-established fact and will argue that there is "plenty of evidence supporting it." One should then insist on seeing this evidence and refuse to listen any further until they produce it.

( this is why now when I ask my professor to answer question people here ask he doen`t want to debate or answer what he say´s is non sense foolish people who specially won`t research and is not willing to investegate for themselves so they will know a little what they are fighting against which is reality.)

If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew word neitzer, which means a shoot or sprout--an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the most
notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri.

c.moore
September 28th, 2004, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by keypurr

My post from another thread

Keypurr Response:
It seems to me if God was going to build a church with a figurehead like Peter, he would document it in scripture. The Bible only says he preached around the eastern side of the Med Sea. Now they say they have found his bones in Jerusalem. Peter was claimed to be the first Bishop of Rome and executed by Nero. However scripture says he was in Jerusalem, 1800 miles away at that time.

Interesting words from the web site below.

The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story. The book of the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius, which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24). Soon after, about the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 A.D. and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9). Paul tells us that three years after his conversion in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 A.D., fourteen years later, he again went up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter being mentioned. Soon after that he met Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, "Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," Gal. 2:11. The evidence is abundant, the truth is clear from the Scriptures which have never failed. It would be breathtaking to read of the boldness of Paul in dealing with Peter. Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope and lived (except in these days when everybody seems to withstand him). If Peter were Pope it would have been no different. Paul does not only withstand Peter but rebukes him and blames him of being at fault.

Read the entire story here. It is very interesting. You don't have to believe it. But some in the church do.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm


Why don`t you try this resouce ?

It goes to the real original peter who is copied in the bible so I question what tomb was found and who really was in it?

http://www.reformation.org/simon_peter_versus_simon_magus.html

Granite
September 28th, 2004, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

What do you mean site my sources. I haven't seen you sight anything except sweeping comments that you are a historian of ancient Rome. You haven't backed up any of your claims.

I should of said historical documents. What are historical facts to you Granite.

They have found Peter's burial place in the catacombs under the Vatican.

I've done my homework. If the best you can do is run to Collier's, well, knock yourself out.

Peter's "burial place" is by no means a cut and dry issue, and most of the Protestant community has never accepted the "sites" and "relics" touted by the Catholic Church.

c.moore
September 28th, 2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

I've done my homework. If the best you can do is run to Collier's, well, knock yourself out.

Peter's "burial place" is by no means a cut and dry issue, and most of the Protestant community has never accepted the "sites" and "relics" touted by the Catholic Church.

:thumb: :)