can anyone please give me proof that Jesus Christ is real?

[Granite]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

Moore, Just out of curiosity. Is you teacher Christian? What is he/she getting at?

 

[Berean Todd]

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]

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]

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]

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: