can anyone please give me proof that Jesus Christ is real?
- Thread starter c.moore
- Start date
Oh. Glad to see you at least cite your sources.
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.
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I should of said historical documents.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I should of said historical documents.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.
Last edited:
keypurr
Well-known member
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
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
c.moore
New member
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
New member
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
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.
If you actually think that everyone agrees that Peter's tomb has been conclusively and without doubt discovered, then you're simply naive or misinformed. This is just a case in point.
But you do hit on a very good question. Because it probably IS all a myth: Horus, Osiris, Jesus, everyone else. Nothing in Christianity is unique at all; if anything it's a tapestry.
keypurr
Well-known member
jjjg, can you defend your belief about Peter in Rome?
Even the church is divided on this issue.
I don't want to hurt your feelings because I value your friendship, but I think the RCC is evil. It has distorted the truth since day one. I have many loved ones in the RCC, my great grandmother was an RCC. But I stand by my statement. I think the "man of sin" is sitting on a throne in Rome. In Revelation the church is called the "Mother of Harlots". Now if she is the Mother, you can guess who the daughters are.
Even the church is divided on this issue.
I don't want to hurt your feelings because I value your friendship, but I think the RCC is evil. It has distorted the truth since day one. I have many loved ones in the RCC, my great grandmother was an RCC. But I stand by my statement. I think the "man of sin" is sitting on a throne in Rome. In Revelation the church is called the "Mother of Harlots". Now if she is the Mother, you can guess who the daughters are.
I believe revelations is talking about the Roman empire at the time it was written. It was the Church that wrote Revelations. The only general message you can read from Revelations is one of hope.
When everything looks down and out, Christ will save his people. You cannot connect certain passages in Revelations with our time. Anybody reading revelations will tell you that there is something missing.
Either text is missing or they tried to fit together to differenty visions. So it is impossible to believe you have some whole picture of future events.
When everything looks down and out, Christ will save his people. You cannot connect certain passages in Revelations with our time. Anybody reading revelations will tell you that there is something missing.
Either text is missing or they tried to fit together to differenty visions. So it is impossible to believe you have some whole picture of future events.
c.moore
New member
I am thinking very strongly of the change to believing Horus and Osiris as the original jesus recycle or copy cats from jesus myth.
here is the link to get some answers about your questions you have ask and you can also compare and see the Jesus loops as the world developes and goes through it religious processes.
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm
Last edited:
C. Moore, are you serious? You're crazed enough to.
The difference is Horus is completely fabricated. You may eliminate the Jesus as being the Son of God but the historicity of the man remains.
Just as you may take away from the Emperor being a God but the man Julius Ceaser remains.
The Hebrew history and promise of a Messiah is unique and as old as Egyptian people.
The foolishness of Christ to the gentiles is that the Son of God would let himself be crucified and ridiculed and die on a cross.
That alone is unique as is the message of or weakness being our greatest strength and to love one another and treat each other as equals.:thumb:
The difference is Horus is completely fabricated. You may eliminate the Jesus as being the Son of God but the historicity of the man remains.
Just as you may take away from the Emperor being a God but the man Julius Ceaser remains.
The Hebrew history and promise of a Messiah is unique and as old as Egyptian people.
The foolishness of Christ to the gentiles is that the Son of God would let himself be crucified and ridiculed and die on a cross.
That alone is unique as is the message of or weakness being our greatest strength and to love one another and treat each other as equals.:thumb:
Last edited:
The Egyptians believed in multiple Gods and Horus was like Hercules a son of a God. It has nothing to do with the belief in one God in three persons.
The Egyptians just saw the sun and moon and they named Gods after them and gave them distinct powers that they made up etc.
This all goes against the Hebrew God which was a distinct religion and this is the tradition that Christianity came from.
The Egyptians just saw the sun and moon and they named Gods after them and gave them distinct powers that they made up etc.
This all goes against the Hebrew God which was a distinct religion and this is the tradition that Christianity came from.
Last edited: