Home
Is there anyone here who has read about or can disprove teh resurection of Jesus to satisfy a court?

Is there anyone here who has tried to disprove it for themselves? If so, what were your results?
No more than anyone can prove it. It ain�t about evidence, it�s about faith. Why do so many seem to need to �prove� their belief in God?
That pretty much sums it up.
Well, gentlemen, it appears both of you are generally ignorant of legal historical evidence. I listened to a lecture on legal historical evidence today. That makes me a national expert! Do you fellas beleive in Abraham Lincoln? How about Napolien? Alexander the Great? All these people are proved to exist from legal historical evidence.

Christianity is not based, for the informed person, on blind faith. For some it is; and that is O.K. for them. Just as blind faith is O.K. for you guys.

According to some of the greatest legal minds who have tried to disprove the resurection for themselves, they have become ardent followers of Jesus.
Depends entirely on the jury.
See there Steelhead, we�re ignorant. I learned from him earlier that �heavy genetic loads� shorten your lifespan. At least he concedes it�s ok for the rubes to just have blind faith in God so we don�t need to grasp why Newtonian physics breaks down at the precise point needed to keep anything from being further than 5000 light years away and screwing with his �legal historical evidence�. Kinda like how physics change when you raise your scope mounts.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Is there anyone here who has read about or can disprove teh resurection of Jesus to satisfy a court?

Is there anyone here who has tried to disprove it for themselves? If so, what were your results?


As a starter, could you prove the existence of Jesus to satisfy an independent court ?
Sure could.
Just ask Tacitus, or Josephus.
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.
Originally Posted by Steelhead
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.


(ummmmmm,,,,,,,,,,I think you might go to hell for saying that.....I dunno...Im a drinking baptist so Im not on the fast track myself but WOW..Im not gonna push it that much! eek
That's ok, can't fathom an eternity with the 'saved'
Originally Posted by Steelhead
That's ok, can't fathom an eternity with the 'saved'


LOL it just might beat the hell out of the option.
I still have time, all I need do is acknowledge Christ and screw over everyone else, that should get me in.
Originally Posted by 340boy
Sure could.
Just ask Tacitus, or Josephus.


I am not a scholar of those things, therefore I have to rely on the scholarship of others and a critical reading.

It appears that the authenticity of the text attributed to Tacitus is questionable and that, even if the authenticity could be established, it does not lead to a substantial proof of the existence of Jesus, whose name is not even mentioned in the "Tacitus" text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tacitus_on_Christ
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Similarly the text of Josephus which refers to "James the brother of Jesus" does not give a clear indication that this Jesus (with a brother!!!...) is the one us Christians are looking for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James

Sorry, but it appears that the "court" is likely to reject what you cite as historical evidence.
The American Justice system must accept the historical existance of Jesus, other wise there would not be much point in requiring folks to swear on oath on the bible when they take to the stand??
It's not on the Bible in the Commonwealth of Va,Pete.

Obama hasn't got you using the Koran already has he??? grin
I think the court would toss out the case because you don't have "standing".
LOL....here the clerk has the witness raise their right hand and asks "Do you swear or affirm that you will truthfully testify under penalty of perjury" or some similar version of that recitation. I wonder how many jurisdictions still ask for the oath upon the Bible. My guess it is not too many in the states, any longer.

How do they accomplish it in your country,Pete?
Issac,

I hate to say this on the internet, and on this forum too, but I really don't know! grin (Does Rick ban people if they admit they are not "experts" ? grin )

I believe the usual way is taking the oath on the bible, but I think there is provision for just taking an oath similar how you guysdo it, or using some other "holy book" if you are of another faith...

Regards,

Peter
I don't know, Pete. Seems to me if you don't know, that means you've not been in a courtroom. Seems a good kind of ignorance, to me.

Have a good day,Pete!
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body utilizes when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

The Uniform Determination of Death Act
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). It states that: "An individual who has sustained either

(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards."

This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981. Today all fifty states and the District of Columbia follow the UDDA as a legal standard of death.

The issue is going to be with picking the jury.
If over 500 witnesses attest to seeing something happen in a Roman court, it's established as fact.

Quote
1 Corinthians 15:1-7, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."


Also, Pliny & Mohammed mentioned Jesus in their writings.
Originally Posted by Steelhead
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.

According to what they have printed here in the program, y'all are going to try to kill him again, when he so rudely interrupts the Battle of Armageddon, but they say the result will be a little different this time. Not a lot of details.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. I'm sure it'll be entertaining.
Trolls head MRI????[Linked Image]
One man's troll is another man's treasure.
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Originally Posted by Steelhead
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.


(ummmmmm,,,,,,,,,,I think you might go to hell for saying that.....I dunno...Im a drinking baptist so Im not on the fast track myself but WOW..Im not gonna push it that much! eek


That's okay. You are welcomed to the Otherworld with the Goddess and the Faeries if you don't make the other place. grin
I believe in Santa Claus even if I can't prove it. grin

Boy, you Christians are really getting desperate.
I have never tried to disprove it, but as a Christian who is not blessed with the gift of unquestioning faith, and I do think it's a gift, here's what bothers me:

Why did Jesus' appearance change so that even his own disciples did not recognize him after the resurrection (Mark 16:12). If you were a lawyer trying to argue that He did not return to life, wouldn't that passage right there give you a lot of ammunition?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
McInnis,

I enclosed the heading from a private message I sent to you. The lecture I listened to yesterday had several examples like this one. If there are other posters who are interested, let me know and I will send you a copy also.

A small intro to Simon Greenleaf. In 1842 he wrote the three volumes on evidence to be used in courts in the United States. His volumes are still used in law schools today to teach students how to properly access evidence.

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)
Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Is there anyone here who has read about or can disprove teh resurection of Jesus to satisfy a court?

Is there anyone here who has tried to disprove it for themselves? If so, what were your results?


Why would a believer or disbeliever even try??? WTF is the point? You either believe or you don't. It's a spiritual thing. Kinda like theoretical quantum physics... grin
There has been more than one occasion in modern times where a person has been pronounced dead by a physician & then found to be alive while laying in the morgue...If you believe in God, Christ, Mohammed, Allah etc...more power to ya...My personal belief is that religion overall is nothing more than a tool of mans creation in an attempt to gain power over others and it has worked marvelously for that exact purpose & nothing more.

Of course there is another plausible reason....could have been some good shrooms...
You can't prove or disprove the resurrection in court in the USA because you can't examine any witnesses. Hearsay evidence is not admissable.
"There has been more than one occasion in modern times where a person has been pronounced dead by a physician & then found to be alive while laying in the morgue..."

This type of "resurrection" was very common in Europe until the 19th century or so. It's where we get our phrase, "the graveyard shift."

During the Middle Ages, corpses were sometimes disinterred to make room for others. It was sometimes found that the "dead" people had scratched away at their coffins in a futile effort to escape. So...they started burying people with a string attached around their finger. The string led up to a bell on a stick by the grave. Someone was delegated to stay in the graveyard all night for a few days so they could disinter the person if they regainewd consciousness and the bell rang.

Also I believe the original term "wake" referred to a period of watchfulness before they buried the body, to make sure the person had actually died.

Originally Posted by Steelhead
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.


A Sarah Silverman fan.

- Tom
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Originally Posted by Steelhead
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.


(ummmmmm,,,,,,,,,,I think you might go to hell for saying that.....I dunno...Im a drinking baptist so Im not on the fast track myself but WOW..Im not gonna push it that much! eek


That's okay. You are welcomed to the Otherworld with the Goddess and the Faeries if you don't make the other place. grin



They probably wont have me either..... wink Im no goddess and NOT a fairey so Im not sure what they would do with a slow talking chick from Alabama....LOL
Well Ringman it appears you really are serious with this thread so I'll give you a serious answer. Before you can prove the resurrection you would have to prove he died.

There is sufficient evidence out there if you care to do the research to to questioned whether he even died in the first place. Many historians do not believe he died. If he never died he could not rise from the dead.
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Originally Posted by Steelhead
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.


(ummmmmm,,,,,,,,,,I think you might go to hell for saying that.....I dunno...Im a drinking baptist so Im not on the fast track myself but WOW..Im not gonna push it that much! eek


That's okay. You are welcomed to the Otherworld with the Goddess and the Faeries if you don't make the other place. grin



They probably wont have me either..... wink Im no goddess and NOT a fairey so Im not sure what they would do with a slow talking chick from Alabama....LOL


Ya but you are highly intelligent and beautiful. That's two big pluses right there. smile
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Originally Posted by Steelhead
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.


(ummmmmm,,,,,,,,,,I think you might go to hell for saying that.....I dunno...Im a drinking baptist so Im not on the fast track myself but WOW..Im not gonna push it that much! eek


That's okay. You are welcomed to the Otherworld with the Goddess and the Faeries if you don't make the other place. grin



They probably wont have me either..... wink Im no goddess and NOT a fairey so Im not sure what they would do with a slow talking chick from Alabama....LOL


Ya but you are highly intelligent and beautiful. That's two big pluses right there. smile



Well if that is the entry criteria maby they would let me be the doorkeeper or something?? Im keeping my fingers crossed that I will spend the after life with the rest of the good ole Alabama Baptists. wink
Kat will have plenty of privacy and space because he will put all the Baptist by themselves.
Why do you say that? Its the Church of Christ folks who think they are the only ones going. LOL
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Why do you say that? Its the Church of Christ folks who think they are the only ones going. LOL

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's funny, but true. smile It's interesting with C of C, you might have 10 or 15 in a county, and each one is better then the other.
Originally Posted by hunter1960
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Why do you say that? Its the Church of Christ folks who think they are the only ones going. LOL

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's funny, but true. smile It's interesting with C of C, you might have 10 or 15 in a county, and each one is better then the other.


My aunt is a devout C of C. We never attended her services but knew that she was devout in her beliefs. She told my mom once that she was so sorry that all the family was going to hell except for her and her children. ~weird~
...

Funny how this place seems completely caught up in and fascinated with: the idea of God - specifically Christian doctrines (who, where, what, etc.), the struggle for belief, and staunch or certain belief/disbelief in Him. It's such a captivating subject isn't it?

And so many revolutionaries here, yet where do their loyalties lie? Only to themselves? Too bad, because revolution finds its purpose in loyalty.

Where does your purpose come from? This is a much better question to me than the "defend Jesus in a courtroom..." idea.


HTB
Quote
Well Ringman it appears you really are serious with this thread so I'll give you a serious answer. Before you can prove the resurrection you would have to prove he died.

There is sufficient evidence out there if you care to do the research to to questioned whether he even died in the first place. Many historians do not believe he died. If he never died he could not rise from the dead.


Some of the stuff that is posted here is amazing. His death certificate was signed by four different individuals. This was after he was beat beyond recognition. His beard was pulled out. He had a crown of thorns stuck on His head. He suffered severe blood loss and then to top things off, a soldier stabed Him in the heart.

You do beleive in miracles, don't you!
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Originally Posted by hunter1960
Originally Posted by NurseKat
Why do you say that? Its the Church of Christ folks who think they are the only ones going. LOL

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's funny, but true. smile It's interesting with C of C, you might have 10 or 15 in a county, and each one is better then the other.


My aunt is a devout C of C. We never attended her services but knew that she was devout in her beliefs. She told my mom once that she was so sorry that all the family was going to hell except for her and her children. ~weird~

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They're interesting. As i've mentioned each individual C of C church is better, more God fearing then the other ones.

I've heard stories of them "reading out" member's during a service. This to member's who they feel aren't as religious as they should be. That along with those seen in the community, doing something that they shouldn't be doing.
Originally Posted by HammerTimeBagley
...

Funny how this place seems completely caught up in and fascinated with: the idea of God - specifically Christian doctrines (who, where, what, etc.), the struggle for belief, and staunch or certain belief/disbelief in Him. It's such a captivating subject isn't it?

And so many revolutionaries here, yet where do their loyalties lie? Only to themselves? Too bad, because revolution finds its purpose in loyalty.

Where does your purpose come from? This is a much better question to me than the "defend Jesus in a courtroom..." idea.


HTB


Good Lord Sugar are you from Bagley Alabama??? I have not been thru that place in eons!!!! There use to be a little cafe there that had a MOST EXCELLENT cheeseburger!!! Just thought you might have been from there by your sign on name.
I'm not far from you Kat - I live about 7 miles South of the Galleria.

over and out
Hammer

P.S.-I love cheeseburgers!
what would place a potential flaw in the slaw, would be modern DNA testing and profiling turning up a radical DNA sequence of some kind in one or more human individuals?
traced back to lineage in France and other countries, it pointed back to the Jerusalem area?

might not prove anything, but would be highly suggestive.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Is there anyone here who has read about or can disprove teh resurection of Jesus to satisfy a court?

Is there anyone here who has tried to disprove it for themselves? If so, what were your results?


You cannot prove a negative.

Now, if you asked if anyone has proved, to a legal standard, that Jesus was resurrected, well, that would interest me......
Originally Posted by HammerTimeBagley
I'm not far from you Kat - I live about 7 miles South of the Galleria.

over and out
Hammer

P.S.-I love cheeseburgers!



Hmmmmmmm...............Im 6 miles south of the Galleria.......
before you decide if he came back to life you need to prove he died...
but way before that you need to establish his factual existance.
Until someone does that this is a useless thread, by any measure.
I believe the burden of proof would be to PROVE resurrection.

In that context I dunno that the Bible would be classed as anything other than hearsay.
Originally Posted by HammerTimeBagley
Funny how this place seems completely caught up in and fascinated with: the idea of God - specifically Christian doctrines (who, where, what, etc.), the struggle for belief, and staunch or certain belief/disbelief in Him. It's such a captivating subject isn't it?


You are new here. There used to be a section called "Christ At The Campfire" which was the reason many of us outdoor types joined. The administrators still allow us to cover such subjects.

Now you know.
Originally Posted by ringworm
before you decide if he came back to life you need to prove he died...
but way before that you need to establish his factual existance.
Until someone does that this is a useless thread, by any measure.


You hate blacks. It goes hand in hand with your antichristian hatred. If you believed that Christ exists, you would have to dump your racial bigotry. You fight your "inner war" on two fronts. It must drive you crazy.
i dont hate anyone.
i dont hate blacks anymore than i hate criminal whites. i just know that by proportion more blacks are criminals so i stay away from them.
I dont hate christians more than i do pagans. but pagans never come to my front door telling me that im going to hell if i dont get saved.
get it? by the way, why are responding to my post, i thought you had me on ignore.
Originally Posted by Steelhead
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.


This is truly frightening. I had no idea your hatred of us was this intense.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Quote
Well Ringman it appears you really are serious with this thread so I'll give you a serious answer. Before you can prove the resurrection you would have to prove he died.

There is sufficient evidence out there if you care to do the research to to questioned whether he even died in the first place. Many historians do not believe he died. If he never died he could not rise from the dead.


Some of the stuff that is posted here is amazing. His death certificate was signed by four different individuals. This was after he was beat beyond recognition. His beard was pulled out. He had a crown of thorns stuck on His head. He suffered severe blood loss and then to top things off, a soldier stabbed Him in the heart.

You do believe in miracles, don't you!


Nope, I don't believe in miracles. I'm a Pagan.

I didn't know they had death certificates back than. I wonder where Roman hid the death certificate. Seems if they had that than the argument about whether Christianity is the true religion or not could be settled.
Quote
I didn't know they had death certificates back than. I wonder where Roman hid the death certificate.
Three days later they had to void it.
Originally Posted by 340boy
Sure could.
Just ask Tacitus, or Josephus.
Neither of whom were present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Now I'm not really familiar (or as familiar) with ++Josephus, but Tacitus' writings completely confirm early church claims to the deity of Christ.

So, that leave me wondering what you're refering to?

++Was Josephus a governor? If so, then he also confirms the claims of early Christians about Christ.
Can't prove a negative. You can't disprove Bigfoot exists, for that matter.

Originally Posted by KevinGibson
Originally Posted by 340boy
Sure could.
Just ask Tacitus, or Josephus.
Neither of whom were present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Now I'm not really familiar (or as familiar) with ++Josephus, but Tacitus' writings completely confirm early church claims to the deity of Christ.

So, that leave me wondering what you're refering to?

++Was Josephus a governor? If so, then he also confirms the claims of early Christians about Christ.


Kevin,
I think I made a mistake.
I should have stated that in my opinion, Josephus and Tacitus could give independent confirmation of the earthly existence of Jesus Christ.
Josephus, as far as I can ascertain was not a governor, but was a historian.

If a lawyer can prove that OJ didn't do it, then I'm pretty sure one could also prove that the earth is square, Moses parted the Red Sea, and Christ rose from the dead. In any case, the net result would not mean much other than that the lawyer was talented and the judicial system has a few flaws. Bottom line is that you either believe or you don't, proof only comes after it's too late to make any changes. That being the case, do as you see fit and leave others to do the same. Now that I've solved all future religious quandries I guess we won't be seeing any more threads pertaining to silly Jesus questions.
I could prove it if he'd just show up for his damn deposition!
He is too busy keeping all you attorneys in line, Bob!
grin
Originally Posted by ringworm
but pagans never come to my front door telling me that im going to hell if i dont get saved.


pagans think you go to hell?
Originally Posted by 340boy
Originally Posted by KevinGibson
Originally Posted by 340boy
Sure could.
Just ask Tacitus, or Josephus.
Neither of whom were present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Now I'm not really familiar (or as familiar) with ++Josephus, but Tacitus' writings completely confirm early church claims to the deity of Christ.

So, that leave me wondering what you're refering to?

++Was Josephus a governor? If so, then he also confirms the claims of early Christians about Christ.


Kevin,
I think I made a mistake.
I should have stated that in my opinion, Josephus and Tacitus could give independent confirmation of the earthly existence of Jesus Christ.
Josephus, as far as I can ascertain was not a governor, but was a historian.



Josephus writings have been confirmed to be fraudulent.
The Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not an outright forgery.
Tacitus merely mentions the word christus, the onionted one.
The quote, supposed to have been written around 117 AD, reads:
�Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome .�

1. No contemporary historians record a Neronian persecution of Christians.
2. Nero�s famed minister, Seneca, wrote extensively but never even mentioned Christians in Rome.
3. Eusebius never refers to this passage when makng the claim of Neronian persecution.
4. Tertullian quoted Tacitus extensively, but never refers to this passage.
5. No commentator who quoted Tacitus ever made reference to this passage before the 15th century.

You'll have to do better than that.
Quote
Josephus writings have been confirmed to be fraudulent. The Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not an outright forgery.


Confirmed by whom? Most of the better-known skeptics will posit the view of interpolation of certain portions, but not that the whole document is fraudulent. I think your bias is obscuring whatever objectivity you could have.

Quote
Tacitus merely mentions the word christus, the onionted one.
The quote, supposed to have been written around 117 AD, reads:
�Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome .�


Please tell us about another Christus who was crucified by pontus Pilate whose followers were called Christians. Tell us also about the "Christus" that Suetonius wrote about and who He was. Tell us about the Babylonian Talmud that speaks of Jesus being hanged on a tree on the eve of Passover. Tell us about this other Galilean that Emporer Julian writes about. How about Celsus the critic, and Lucian, and Pliny? Are all these documents fraudulent? Do you really think that you have done honest and credible research?

Quote
No contemporary historians record a Neronian persecution of Christians.


Here is the full rendering from Tacitus taken from the Wikkipedia:

Tacitus describes the support for the homeless provided by Nero and the rebuilding of the city, then refers to religious rituals carried out based on a consultation of the Sibylline Books.[2] However, none of this did away with the suspicion that the fire had been started on Nero's orders:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[3]

Tacitus then returns to the topic of Nero's reputation and the effect on it of these events:

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.[3]


Another Roman historian Suetonius confirms Nero's persecution of Christians, though he does not connect it to the fire of Rome; but this makes sense for most Roman historians not to affix blame of the fire to their emperor. The point in question is confirmed by Seutonius that Nero did persecute Christians.

From the Wikkipedia:

Suetonius also mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire[12].[13]

And the latest scholarship defends the authenticity of Tacitus on commenting on the "Christians" as followers of Christ. Taken from the Wikkipedia:

In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (i.e. an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[16] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbriviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[17]


Quote
Tertullian quoted Tacitus extensively, but never refers to this passage.


This is a specious argument, for Tertullian confirms the same information as Tacitus that Nero did persecute the Christians. See his Apology chapter 5:

Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making profess then especially at Rome. But we glory in having our condemnation hallowed by the hostility of such a wretch. For any one who knows him, can understand that not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero's condemnation. Domitian, too, a man of Nero's type in cruelty, tried his hand at persecution; but as he had something of the human in him, he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished.

I could go on with additional evidence, but this is sufficient to show that Ringworm has not done credible research.
Thunderstick,
Very interesting.
Christus is not the name jesus.

Amazing that the romans kept records of everything. to this day we know what soldiers were with what legions, how much food they carried, how many horses, ect ect ect.
But the name of a miricle worker doesnt even make it in the records of 31 noted historians.
odd...
Odd how not even the roman soldiers who were sent to collect jesus knew his face but he was supposed to be known throughout the lands.
I know your afraid to accept the reality of it. it must be frigntning to think that all the stories you have been forced fed are nothing but myth stolen from pagans.

since you want to use Wikipedia as a source...
Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not an outright forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Sch�rer as well by several recent popular writers.

Josephus' other major work, The Jewish War, makes no mention of Jesus


At the Vernal Equinox, pagans in northern Israel would celebrate the death and resurrection of the virgin-born Tammuz-Osiris. In Asia Minor (where the earliest Christian churches were established) a similar celebration was held for the virgin-born Attis. Attis was shown as dying against a tree, being buried in a cave and then being resurrected on the third day. We thus see where the Christian story of Jesus's resurrection comes from.
keep swinging johnny come lately. you jesus is just another in the long line of virgin borne executed sun gods. and he IS NOT EVEN near the fron of the line.
Originally Posted by ringworm
Christus is not the name jesus.

Amazing that the romans kept records of everything. to this day we know what soldiers were with what legions, how much food they carried, how many horses, ect ect ect.
But the name of a miricle worker doesnt even make it in the records of 31 noted historians.
odd...
Odd how not even the roman soldiers who were sent to collect jesus knew his face but he was supposed to be known throughout the lands.
I know your afraid to accept the reality of it. it must be frigntning to think that all the stories you have been forced fed are nothing but myth stolen from pagans.

You'll have to do better than that.
Originally Posted by ringworm
Christus is not the name jesus.

Amazing that the romans kept records of everything. to this day we know what soldiers were with what legions, how much food they carried, how many horses, ect ect ect.
But the name of a miricle worker doesnt even make it in the records of 31 noted historians.
odd...
Odd how not even the roman soldiers who were sent to collect jesus knew his face but he was supposed to be known throughout the lands.
I know your afraid to accept the reality of it. it must be frigntning to think that all the stories you have been forced fed are nothing but myth stolen from pagans.



If your position the man didn't exist - how could you possibly know then, what the man's name was? Christus or Jesus?
Originally Posted by ringworm
Christus is not the name jesus.

Amazing that the romans kept records of everything. to this day we know what soldiers were with what legions, how much food they carried, how many horses, ect ect ect.
But the name of a miricle worker doesnt even make it in the records of 31 noted historians.
odd...
Odd how not even the roman soldiers who were sent to collect jesus knew his face but he was supposed to be known throughout the lands.
I know your afraid to accept the reality of it. it must be frigntning to think that all the stories you have been forced fed are nothing but myth stolen from pagans.

since you want to use Wikipedia as a source...
Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not an outright forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Sch�rer as well by several recent popular writers.

Josephus' other major work, The Jewish War, makes no mention of Jesus


At the Vernal Equinox, pagans in northern Israel would celebrate the death and resurrection of the virgin-born Tammuz-Osiris. In Asia Minor (where the earliest Christian churches were established) a similar celebration was held for the virgin-born Attis. Attis was shown as dying against a tree, being buried in a cave and then being resurrected on the third day. We thus see where the Christian story of Jesus's resurrection comes from.
keep swinging johnny come lately. you jesus is just another in the long line of virgin borne executed sun gods. and he IS NOT EVEN near the fron of the line.


never said a man named jesus didnt exist. that would be silly.
The man named "jesus" was probably a hindu priest who brought the ideas of the vedas to the unwashed in the west. and he might have been killed for it. but that was that. he didnt rise from the dead nor was he born of a virgin named mary.

your little stories are so similar to stories proven to be written and told a thousand years prior. do you not see that they are just copied from earlier myths. are you reall that dense as to not be aware of it?
Quote
Christus is not the name jesus


This line was a real gem! We all know that Christus was not the name for Jesus, it was the Latin rendering for Christ.

Would our resident Latin expert and historian please tell us who this other Christus was who was crucified by Pontus Pilate and who had followers who were called Christians, but who was not Jesus Christ? Please grace us with your wisdom on this point!

Quote
Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not an outright forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Sch�rer as well by several recent popular writers.


Notice the "particulars" of this quotation from the Wikkipedia. It was in the mid 18th century that this passage came into dispute, as this was the time when the enlightenment was questioning everything they could about the external witnesses of the Scriptures. There have been manuscripts discovered since then which also carry a similar passage in the Syrian and Arabic versions. This would mean that an interpolater made sure that all the copies in all the languages carried this portion and that all other copies which did not have this portion were destroyed. This is a very unlikely probability. The bottomline is that even skeptical scholars cannot prove this as an interpolation, they can only hypothesize that it is because they do not have hard manuscript evidence to show it is an interpolation.

Secondly, you conveniently overlook that most scholars, even the skeptical ones, accept the other passage in Jospehus which talks about Christ, so the difficulty of the skeptic does not rest with one passage alone, but with two. When both are taken into account, most scholars have acknowledged that it is far more likely that Josephus did write something about Jesus, then that he did not write anything.

Those who refuse to believe Josephus wrote anything about Christ are almost without exception those who adamantly maintain that every other reference to Christ by every other ancient historian are also spurious; therefore they are shown not to be true scholars at all, but skeptics with a deliberate agenda.

Note the following later in the Wikkipedia which you conveniently ignore:

The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just.

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but 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; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[59]

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[60]


I think your proposition is failing. Why would you not consider doing some real honest investigative studies on this subject which seems to consume you?
Quote
All I know is if the bastard returned we would kill him again.


This line is just too good to let go, because it either wittingly or unwittingly acknowledges the following:

1. It admits that He came to earth the first time or He could not be killed again.

2. It admits that when Jesus came the first time he was killed.

3. It admits that if He came again He would be killed again, which clearly infers that He is currently living.

Steelhead has just confessed that Jesus Christ came to this earth in the past, was put death at the hands of wicked men, and that He rose again. (else he could not be killed again). grin

This is what we Christians also affirm. wink
Quote from Wikkipedia:

"The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was clearly familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, since he mentions the reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the Testimonium.[3] Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" [5] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" [6], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Thus it would be inferred that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not give as positive an endorsement of Jesus as the present-day Testimonium.

On the other hand, while the evidence from Origen suggests that Josephus did not read the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, that the version of the Antiquities known to Origen must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ."


The last item in bold identifies the most pertinent issue on Josephus. Origen is the earliest writer to quote him. He confirms the authenticity of the second portion in the Antiquities about Christ, he references Josephus as someone who does not endorse Christ's ministry as a believer, but he also establishes the following in his statements:

1. Josephus wrote about Christ
2. Josephus recognized that Jesus Christ was an historical figure who was crucified
3. Even though Jospehus wrote about Christ, he was not a believer who was trying to gloss Christian history
4. there were copies of Josephus much older than our extant manuscripts which speak about Christ
5. all the extant testimony which we have concerning Josephus indicates that he believed that Jesus was the same historical figure portrayed in the gospels

When the skeptics enter Origin as a credible witness into the argument against the authenticity of Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, they in effect destroy the main point of their own skepticism--that Jesus was an historical figure spoken of by Josephus in some manner.

* The question to ponder is, if Jesus was an historical figure who was crucified, and the early Christians were persecuted by Jews and Romans for publishing his resurrection; why didn't the ancient Pagans and Jews produce the evidence of His body and dispel the myth of the resurrection? All they needed to do was find the body and Christianity could have been shown to be a hoax.
Quote
The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,


WOW!
you have found it. the Holy Grail of Jesus proof.
A single line that says there was someone named jesus who was a brother of James.
Thats amazing...
Im sold. where do i go to get saved. sign me up. dont i need a lobotomy first or does that come in later?

im sure the name jesus wasnt common in that region.


but wait...
lets read the whole thing.
The works of Josephus : Complete and unabridged Ant. 11.297-303
Quote
Now Jesus was the brother of John, and was a friend of Bagoses, who had promised to procure him the high priesthood. (299) In confidence of whose support, Jesus quarrelled with John in the temple, and so provoked his brother, that in his anger his brother slew him. Now it was a horrible thing for John when he was high priest, to perpetrate so great a crime, and so much the more horrible, that there never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by the Greeks nor Barbarians.

WHAT??? Josephus wrote about someone named jesus who was KILLED by his brother james.
Is that the same jesus?
NO!!!!
couldnt be. But if it was a different Jesus then how can we be sure that the other Josephus entry is about the real jesus?
I guess it would mean we have to cherry pick what we are going to belive, huh?



I know I'm going to regret this but Ringworm the whole Bible is cherry picking but Christians will never admit that.
No matter what one "chooses" to believe, it is still comes down to a matter of faith.

There is a big difference between knowing something to be true, and believing something to be true.
Faith is beliving in something without physical proof.
Denial is a defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

faith is fine, but to know what TRUTH is and to deny it is much closer to a mental instabilty.

The world is 10000 years old.
The entire human race began with Adam and eve.
All the animal species on the planet lived within walking distance of Noahs house.
Jesus came back to life.
When is someone going to tell me what the barometer for knowing what in the bible is historical and what is symbolic?
You all have your own ideas, even between the vast sects of christians you cant agree.
Quote
WOW!
you have found it. the Holy Grail of Jesus proof.
A single line that says there was someone named jesus who was a brother of James.
Thats amazing...
Im sold. where do i go to get saved. sign me up. dont i need a lobotomy first or does that come in later?

im sure the name jesus wasnt common in that region.


How many Jesus Christ's are there in the New Testament times who were crucified, and whose followers were called Christians? This question only has one reasonable answer, but if you wish to have a go at it, feel free...

Quote
The works of Josephus : Complete and unabridged Ant. 11.297-303
Quote:
Now Jesus was the brother of John, and was a friend of Bagoses, who had promised to procure him the high priesthood. (299) In confidence of whose support, Jesus quarrelled with John in the temple, and so provoked his brother, that in his anger his brother slew him. Now it was a horrible thing for John when he was high priest, to perpetrate so great a crime, and so much the more horrible, that there never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by the Greeks nor Barbarians.


WHAT??? Josephus wrote about someone named jesus who was KILLED by his brother james.
Is that the same jesus?
NO!!!!
couldnt be. But if it was a different Jesus then how can we be sure that the other Josephus entry is about the real jesus?
I guess it would mean we have to cherry pick what we are going to belive, huh?


I gave the full quote above, as provided in the Wikkipedia, which also matches my hard copy books at home. Your rendition is nothing more than a Skeptic's opinion of how they think it was originally written, the problem for them is that no manuscripts back up this version, so again you are left with nothing to base your skepticism on but bias.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Is there anyone here who has read about or can disprove teh resurection of Jesus to satisfy a court?

Is there anyone here who has tried to disprove it for themselves? If so, what were your results?
The strongest evidence of Christ's resurrection was the number of his immediate followers who preferred execution to confessing that they never saw and spoke with the resurrected Christ.
Quote
Faith is beliving in something without physical proof.


Faith is believing in truth that cannot be fully proven, because it is not always tangible to human senses, but which has evidence to support such a belief.

The scripture says, "faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

In your case, your skepticism has been shown to be rooted in blind unbelief. You have yet to provide one sustainable argument for your position that Jesus was not an historical figure.

Quote
When is someone going to tell me what the barometer for knowing what in the bible is historical and what is symbolic?
You all have your own ideas, even between the vast sects of christians you cant agree.


If you want to know the truth, you must first believe that there is truth to be known, otherwise you are like a child going to school and telling his teaching I don't believe you can teach me anything. Faith is always a necessary component in any type of education. This is why when skeptics completely discount faith, they are choosing to be ignorant.
Matthew - sufffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

Mark - died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.

Luke - was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.

John - faced martydom when he was boiled in huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos.The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.

Peter - was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross.,according to church tradition because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died.

James the Just - the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.

James the Greater - a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.

Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael - was a missionary to Asia.He witnessed to our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia when he was flayed to death by a whip.

Andrew - was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: "I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it." He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.

Thomas - was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the sub-continent.

Jude, the brother of Jesus, - was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.

Matthias - the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.

Barnabas - one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus.Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica.

Paul - was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire. These letters, which taught many of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament.

THESE MEN WERE NOT IN IT TO ADVANTAGE THEMSELVES.

Note: The above was originally written by prismcat38 of Yahoo Answers.
correct and devout are different things.
by your logic all the dead at Johnstown must have been correct along w/ the sucide bombers ect ect...
If Jesus would not have arose, the disciples would have known they were promulgating a lie. It is very unlikely for people to give their lives for what they know to be a lie when they gain nothing earthly from it.

On the other hand people can give their lives for a lie (such as at Johnstown) if they truly believe the lie. In the case of the apostles they would have known if Jesus' resurrection was a lie or the truth, as they were eyewitnesses.
Originally Posted by ringworm
correct and devout are different things.
by your logic all the dead at Johnstown must have been correct along w/ the sucide bombers ect ect...
The dead of Johnstown committed suicide (like the suicide bombers). The Apostles wanted to live. The only reason they were murdered was that they would not stop saying that they personally saw the resurrected Jesus, personally spoke with him, and put their fingers in the holes in his hands and side. All they had to do to avoid being murdered was to admit that it was all a lie and then stop talking about him. But they refused. In law, this is called inherently reliable testimony.
Actually, Thunderstick the first followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes. It wasn't until much later that the word Christ was used. In fact there are Christian Churches today that call themselves Nazarenes instead of Christians.
I'm amazed at all this "fact". It would seem that the Romans would have had tons of documented evidence that people could see. Alas there is little evidence other than the Bible.

I have a bunch of books by Bible scholars and even they can't provide absolute "fact" just speculation. Hummmmm.
Derby,
The early followers of Jesus are called both Nazarenes and Christians in the Bible and secular history.

As to evidence, have you ever thought that perhaps the Romans had access to far more evidence then we have? Just because we do not have more evidence than we do, does not mean that they did not. There is far more manuscript evidence for the NT than any other ancient book from that time. How many copies of Tacitus do we have, Homer, Caesar's Gallic Wars? What do you think made the Roman empire ultimately choose Christianity when Paganism was firmly entrenched in the whole world--evidence or a lack thereof? And when Julian tried unsuccessfully to take Rome back into Paganism, was it evidence or a lack thereof which convinced the people not to go back to their Pagan roots? Apparently they knew better than to leave the truth to return to pagan mythology.

The facts are there for any thinking person to see--if they are willing to see them.

Roman choose Christianity for politics. Christianity was mostly in the big cities not in the rural areas. The rural people were referred to as pagans. Christianity had to become paganized once it reached northern Europe in order for Christianity to succeed. Of Course, it didn't hurt any that Christianity had brute force on it's side. Ever hear of 'conversion by sword'? A very popular method of converting Pagans to Christianity.

You know one of the most amazing things about the Bible is how when talking about the Bible nobody really knows what they other guy is saying. When I was corresponding by letter with a Jehovah Witness he would give me a Bible quote and when I looked it up in my Bible it didn't seem to be the same quote. I would give him a quote and he didn't really know what I was talking about. It finally occurred to me that if we were going to keep corresponding I would need a copy of his Bible so that we could be on the same plain. The point of all this is that there are so many Bibles out in so many different translations that the Bible is meaningless and irrelevant. No offense intended but the Bible is useless as far as I'm concern. Bible quotes to me, for the most part, fall on deaf ears.
Quote
The point of all this is that there are so many Bibles out in so many different translations that the Bible is meaningless and irrelevant.


Does anyone study this stuff anymore?

The scriptures were immediately and universally accepted as such when they were written. This resulted in a handful of very high quality manuscripts for the Old Testament, and thousands of MSS portions for the New Testament. All of that yeilds a text that is around 99% pure, which is miles ahead of any other ancient document.

From those early MSS came two textual traditions, the Majority text view and the Critical Text view. The Majority Text view holds that the best MSSs are the ones that have been traditional accepted. The Criticial Text view holds that we should use the science of Textual Criticism to determine the best manuscripts.

There is again around 99% agreement as to the best text to use between the two traditions. Further, the disagrements are on insignificant differces. That is the mark of VERY high quality manuscripts and science. It's almost like is was Divinely ordained..............

The New World translation the JW's were using was a very poor trnaslation. The JWs changes the words to fit their beliefs, vs basing their beliefs on what is written. The NWT has been soundly rejected by scholars of ancient Greek.

There are varying qualities of English Biblical trnaslations and Paraphrases out there. The best include the NASB, NKJV, and NIV. However, none of those translations are the Bible.

The Bible is the original autographs God inspired humans to write. The best translations of the Bible are the ones that use the best MSS and best textual science to best recreate those original autographs. The three versions I mentioned earlier are among those that do that, though they take slightly different approaches.

It isn't rocket science to evaluate the quality of a Bible translation or paraphrase, but the standard for that evaluation ins't what fits one's particular pet beleifs. The standard is how well the particular tranlsation precisely conveys the meaning of the best manuscripts we have.



Blaine,

Some of us do study, but I remember you discounting this study in our discussion with Bob and Will because I didn't have access to the original autographs. No one has access to those, even you.
I've learned better than to get into these circular arguments but I have to ask,...what's the whole point of these discussions?

Just seems like when it's all said and done, everyone still believes what they originally thought but people like each other a little bit less.

Just can't quite figure it out.
Quote
Roman choose Christianity for politics.

Christianity started out being persecuted and had no political backing unlike paganism. It was only offically embraced by Rome after Christian apologists had succinctly shown that paganism was nothing more than manmade mythology. Your political argument fails.

Quote
Christianity was mostly in the big cities not in the rural areas. The rural people were referred to as pagans.


When paganism had the political backing again under Julian, he could not induce the country to go back to paganism even when he used various measures to suppress Christianity. Again your political argument fails. Paganism by this time was recognized for what it was--barbarism, superstition, and mythology.

Quote
Christianity had to become paganized once it reached northern Europe in order for Christianity to succeed. Of Course, it didn't hurt any that Christianity had brute force on it's side. Ever hear of 'conversion by sword'? A very popular method of converting Pagans to Christianity.


The extent of Rome's empire was established by the sword while it was still pagan. Any argument used with regard to political power or the sword indicts paganism more than Christianity, as all of the old world empires were pagan and advanced their brand of paganism through conquest.
I agree that when Christianity became established it paganized to a degree with regard to observance of some holidays and some practices. However the fundamentals of true Christianity have always stood on the merits of its own strength from God whether it was persecuted, established, promoted, or tolerated. It has always spread under all these varying conditions unlike paganism which largely died as soon as it was no longer nationally established or protected by the sword.

Quote
You know one of the most amazing things about the Bible is how when talking about the Bible nobody really knows what they other guy is saying. When I was corresponding by letter with a Jehovah Witness he would give me a Bible quote and when I looked it up in my Bible it didn't seem to be the same quote. I would give him a quote and he didn't really know what I was talking about. It finally occurred to me that if we were going to keep corresponding I would need a copy of his Bible so that we could be on the same plain. The point of all this is that there are so many Bibles out in so many different translations that the Bible is meaningless and irrelevant. No offense intended but the Bible is useless as far as I'm concern. Bible quotes to me, for the most part, fall on deaf ears.


See Blaine's post.

Additionally I would point out that this argument is nothing but blather. All of the NT was written by the death of the last apostle. The entire NT can be largely constructed from the writings of the early church outside of the manuscripts. Most of it was quoted by men who personally knew the apostles. If you cannot find the truth of God's Word in America, its because you do not want it, or choose to be confused. There are more manuscripts of the NT than any other ancient book (5200), plus early translations and citations from early Christian writers.

You will never find the truth unless you first believe that truth can be found.
Faithful translations made from the extant manuscripts convey to us God's original Word. Jesus and the apostles quoted many times from the Septuagint translation of the OT as the "Scriptures say." Jesus anticipated this modern argument before it was ever made by quoting from translations that were not the original manuscripts and calling them the Word. Faithful translations were always a part of God's plan to spread His Word. Paul said that Timothy had the Holy scriptures from His youth, and obviously he did not have the original autographs. God promised to preserve His Word, not the papyrus and the ink.
Originally Posted by Blaine
Quote
The point of all this is that there are so many Bibles out in so many different translations that the Bible is meaningless and irrelevant.


Does anyone study this stuff anymore?

The scriptures were immediately and universally accepted as such when they were written. This resulted in a handful of very high quality manuscripts for the Old Testament, and thousands of MSS portions for the New Testament. All of that yeilds a text that is around 99% pure, which is miles ahead of any other ancient document.

From those early MSS came two textual traditions, the Majority text view and the Critical Text view. The Majority Text view holds that the best MSSs are the ones that have been traditional accepted. The Criticial Text view holds that we should use the science of Textual Criticism to determine the best manuscripts.

There is again around 99% agreement as to the best text to use between the two traditions. Further, the disagrements are on insignificant differces. That is the mark of VERY high quality manuscripts and science. It's almost like is was Divinely ordained..............

The New World translation the JW's were using was a very poor trnaslation. The JWs changes the words to fit their beliefs, vs basing their beliefs on what is written. The NWT has been soundly rejected by scholars of ancient Greek.

There are varying qualities of English Biblical trnaslations and Paraphrases out there. The best include the NASB, NKJV, and NIV. However, none of those translations are the Bible.

The Bible is the original autographs God inspired humans to write. The best translations of the Bible are the ones that use the best MSS and best textual science to best recreate those original autographs. The three versions I mentioned earlier are among those that do that, though they take slightly different approaches.

It isn't rocket science to evaluate the quality of a Bible translation or paraphrase, but the standard for that evaluation ins't what fits one's particular pet beleifs. The standard is how well the particular tranlsation precisely conveys the meaning of the best manuscripts we have.



Well said.
Two great posts, Thunderstick.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Well, gentlemen, it appears both of you are generally ignorant of legal historical evidence. I listened to a lecture on legal historical evidence today. That makes me a national expert! Do you fellas beleive in Abraham Lincoln? How about Napolien? Alexander the Great? All these people are proved to exist from legal historical evidence.

Christianity is not based, for the informed person, on blind faith. For some it is; and that is O.K. for them. Just as blind faith is O.K. for you guys.

According to some of the greatest legal minds who have tried to disprove the resurection for themselves, they have become ardent followers of Jesus.


And that's called faith.
Originally Posted by Steelhead
That's ok, can't fathom an eternity with the 'saved'


LOL, now that was seriously funny.
I'm always amazed that somebody has nothin' better to do that think up this kinda shiat... and yet there are 5 pages of posts trying to respond to it.
Faith alone isn't good enough for some who apparantly require "proof" and an amen chorus.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Quote
Roman choose Christianity for politics.

Christianity started out being persecuted and had no political backing unlike paganism. It was only offically embraced by Rome after Christian apologists had succinctly shown that paganism was nothing more than manmade mythology. Your political argument fails.

Quote
Christianity was mostly in the big cities not in the rural areas. The rural people were referred to as pagans.


When paganism had the political backing again under Julian, he could not induce the country to go back to paganism even when he used various measures to suppress Christianity. Again your political argument fails. Paganism by this time was recognized for what it was--barbarism, superstition, and mythology.

Quote
Christianity had to become paganized once it reached northern Europe in order for Christianity to succeed. Of Course, it didn't hurt any that Christianity had brute force on it's side. Ever hear of 'conversion by sword'? A very popular method of converting Pagans to Christianity.


The extent of Rome's empire was established by the sword while it was still pagan. Any argument used with regard to political power or the sword indicts paganism more than Christianity, as all of the old world empires were pagan and advanced their brand of paganism through conquest.
I agree that when Christianity became established it paganized to a degree with regard to observance of some holidays and some practices. However the fundamentals of true Christianity have always stood on the merits of its own strength from God whether it was persecuted, established, promoted, or tolerated. It has always spread under all these varying conditions unlike paganism which largely died as soon as it was no longer nationally established or protected by the sword.

Quote
You know one of the most amazing things about the Bible is how when talking about the Bible nobody really knows what they other guy is saying. When I was corresponding by letter with a Jehovah Witness he would give me a Bible quote and when I looked it up in my Bible it didn't seem to be the same quote. I would give him a quote and he didn't really know what I was talking about. It finally occurred to me that if we were going to keep corresponding I would need a copy of his Bible so that we could be on the same plain. The point of all this is that there are so many Bibles out in so many different translations that the Bible is meaningless and irrelevant. No offense intended but the Bible is useless as far as I'm concern. Bible quotes to me, for the most part, fall on deaf ears.


See Blaine's post.

Additionally I would point out that this argument is nothing but blather. All of the NT was written by the death of the last apostle. The entire NT can be largely constructed from the writings of the early church outside of the manuscripts. Most of it was quoted by men who personally knew the apostles. If you cannot find the truth of God's Word in America, its because you do not want it, or choose to be confused. There are more manuscripts of the NT than any other ancient book (5200), plus early translations and citations from early Christian writers.

You will never find the truth unless you first believe that truth can be found.


For the most part Thunderstick your post is crap. Go buy a history book on ancient history. Better yet take a college course or two.

I'm out of here you can't have a discussion with a ignoramus.
Were I making the case that Christianity wasn't correct I would be refuting the post rather than take my ball and running. wink

Originally Posted by teal
Were I making the case that Christianity wasn't correct I would be refuting the post rather than take my ball and running. wink



I would but you can't with some one who knows nothing about ancient history nor wants to learn because to do so would mean admitting that maybe your religion isn't perfect.

Look I don't know everything either but I willing to learn what I don't know. The Roman Catholic version of Christianity, which was the offical version until the reformation of the 1500's, was one ruthless religion. I subscribed to Christian History magazine for a number of years and they did not white wash Christianity when it was wrong. Christianity is nothing without people and sometimes people do bad things. That's just the way it is.
I never said I promoted the Roman Catholic version of Christianity, in fact I clearly stated on the Paganism thread (that I started) that the dissenting churches were also persecuted during the Middle Ages. However that does not change the facts when comparing paganism versus Roman Catholicism on the topic of this thread.

This is just another attempt to move the focus off the main point of the thread which is:
Is there evidence that Jesus was a man of history who died and rose again?

On that point all understandings of Christianity stand together.
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Originally Posted by teal
Were I making the case that Christianity wasn't correct I would be refuting the post rather than take my ball and running. wink



I would but you can't with some one who knows nothing about ancient history nor wants to learn because to do so would mean admitting that maybe your religion isn't perfect.

Look I don't know everything either but I willing to learn what I don't know. The Roman Catholic version of Christianity, which was the offical version until the reformation of the 1500's, was one ruthless religion. I subscribed to Christian History magazine for a number of years and they did not white wash Christianity when it was wrong. Christianity is nothing without people and sometimes people do bad things. That's just the way it is.


The McChristianity of today doesn't want to admit this with its Happy Meal of Quick Salvation (ie believe and Jesus and even if you're a triple murderer you'll go to heaven, but the atheist grandma won't). 12 years of Catholic school and 12 years of Protestant Congregationalist Sunday school spelled out a few contradictions to me. If no one believed in Jesus, would Jesus still exist? If one sect of Christianity ceases to exist, does that version of God stop existing too? If God wants to talk to us so badly, why doesn't he create a forum on the internet or get a cell phone? Even if we've got free will it'd be easier that way.
Quote
The McChristianity of today doesn't want to admit this with its Happy Meal of Quick Salvation (ie believe and Jesus and even if you're a triple murderer you'll go to heaven, but the atheist grandma won't).


Not the thread topic, but I never promoted that a Christian was to live any other way than Christlike.

Quote
If no one believed in Jesus, would Jesus still exist? If one sect of Christianity ceases to exist, does that version of God stop existing too?


If no one believed in God it would not affect His existence one iota.

Quote
If God wants to talk to us so badly, why doesn't he create a forum on the internet or get a cell phone? Even if we've got free will it'd be easier that way.


The same argument could be made about Zeus, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, ....
Some things need to be believed to be seen.
Have you ever seen a thought or a personality?

Maybe the best proof is the amount of energy a rational person uses to try to disprove it.

What purpose would that be unless it was true.

So in reality ringy your probably the best proof he did exist, and rose again.

Originally Posted by Xiong
If God wants to talk to us so badly, why doesn't he create a forum on the internet or get a cell phone? Even if we've got free will it'd be easier that way.


He wrote you a letter. Have you opened it? cool
Originally Posted by Longbob
Blaine,

Some of us do study, but I remember you discounting this study in our discussion with Bob and Will because I didn't have access to the original autographs. No one has access to those, even you.


Your memory is fuzzy or else you misunderstood. I have never said we shouldn't deeply study the Bible becasue we don't have the original autographs. In fact, I say quite the opposite...........
Quote
you can't with some one who knows nothing about ancient history nor wants to learn


I recommend you take the log out of your own eye before you try to point out the speck in someone else's eye............

Originally Posted by Plinker
He wrote you a letter. Have you opened it? cool

Is this one the letter you're talking about?

Click on the "read" link at the site above.

Penny
Or better yet, go to YouTube and listen:

Father's Love Letter

This makes me cry every time I listen to it...

Penny
Originally Posted by Plinker
Originally Posted by Xiong
If God wants to talk to us so badly, why doesn't he create a forum on the internet or get a cell phone? Even if we've got free will it'd be easier that way.


He wrote you a letter. Have you opened it?


i couldnt sort it out between all the fraudulant documents the church produced to give themselves power land and money in his name...
[Linked Image]
Quote
i couldnt sort it out between all the fraudulant documents the church produced to give themselves power land and money in his name...


In effect then you are saying that your unbelief is based on ignorance rather than knowledge.
Originally Posted by Blaine
Originally Posted by Longbob
Blaine,

Some of us do study, but I remember you discounting this study in our discussion with Bob and Will because I didn't have access to the original autographs. No one has access to those, even you.


Your memory is fuzzy or else you misunderstood. I have never said we shouldn't deeply study the Bible becasue we don't have the original autographs. In fact, I say quite the opposite...........


My memory is not fuzzy. Maybe you can go back and review the PM thread. When I was expressing my analysis of the Bible/s you were discounting it because I didn't have access to the original autographs. I said that you were in the same position so your analysis wouldn't be any more valid than mine if you insisted that I had to use that standard. Your argument was circular. Did you ever wonder why no one chose to continue the discussion?
Originally Posted by Barak's Womn
Originally Posted by Plinker
He wrote you a letter. Have you opened it? cool
Is this one the letter you're talking about? Click on the "read" link at the site above.

Penny


This is the one I am speaking of...

[Linked Image]

Except in ringworm's case one with pictures would be more appropriate.
Not bad. I prefer Goddess the Almighty Mother, it makes more sense to me.
Originally Posted by Blaine
Quote
you can't with some one who knows nothing about ancient history nor wants to learn


I recommend you take the log out of your own eye before you try to point out the speck in someone else's eye............



I could say the same thing to you Blaine. The Church history is out there for those who care to learn. Obviously, that's not you.
I thought you were leaving this discussion.

Apparently the "Almighty Mother/goddess fairy tales" did not make much sense to the Roman world after they could evaluate them against the Gospel accounts and the "evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Quote
i couldnt sort it out between all the fraudulant documents the church produced to give themselves power land and money in his name...


In effect then you are saying that your unbelief is based on ignorance rather than knowledge.
That's what I've heard all along. He even has pictures to prove it! grin
Originally Posted by Plinker
This is the one I am speaking of...

[Linked Image]

We're talking about the same one... smile

Penny
Originally Posted by Xiong
If no one believed in Jesus, would Jesus still exist?

There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan Greek sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity and try to explain away the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events that surrounded his life. Let�s look at these hostile accounts and see what they tell us about Jesus:

Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient that his writings don�t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who had previously tried to explain away the darkness that occurred at the point of Jesus� crucifixion:

"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." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

If only more of Thallus� record could be found, we would see that every aspect of Jesus� life could be verified with a non-biblical source. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, he was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of his crucifixion.

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians are also described in secular history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to 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."

This EARLY description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed that Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers met regularly to worship Jesus.

Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):

"Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome)." (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:

"Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief." (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)

There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this very EARLY account, we know that Jesus had an immediate impact on his followers. They believed that Jesus was God enough to withstand the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on his followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.

Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his �Annals� of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero�s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero�s claim that the Christians were to blame:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

In this account, Tacitus confirms for us that Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.

Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact that Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. As a matter of fact, Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the �Wise King�:

"What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?...After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men...The wise king...Lived on in the teachings he enacted."

From this account, we can add to our understanding of Jesus. We can conclude that Jesus was a wise and influential man who died for his beliefs. We can also conclude that his followers adopted these beliefs and lived lives that reflected them to the world in which they lived.

Phlegon (80-140AD)
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:

"During the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon." (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):

�Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.� (Origen Against Celsus)

�And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place . . . � (Origen Against Celsus)

From these accounts, we can add something to our understand of Jesus and conclude that Jesus was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and had the ability to accurately predict the future!

Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Lucian was a Greek satirist who spoke sarcastically of Christ and Christians, but in the process, he did affirm that they were real people and never referred to them as fictional characters:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day�the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

From this account we can add to our description and conclude that Jesus taught about repentance and about the family of God. These teachings were quickly adopted by Jesus� followers and exhibited to the world around them.

Celsus (175AD)
This is the last hostile �pagan� account we will examine (although there are many other later accounts in history). Celsus was quite hostile to the Gospels, but in his criticism, he unknowingly affirms and reinforces the authors and their content. His writing is extensive and he alludes to 80 different Biblical quotes, confirming their early appearance in history. In addition, he admits that the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the early 2nd century! Here is a portion of his text:

�Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panth�ra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.�

Celsus admits that Jesus was reportedly born of a virgin, but then argues that this supernatural account could not be possible and offers the idea that he was a bastard son of a man named Panthera (an idea borrowed from Jews who opposed Jesus at the time). But in writing this account, Celsus does confirm that Jesus had an earthly father who was a carpenter, possessed unusual magical powers and claimed to be God.

Hostile Non-Biblical Jewish Witnesses
In addition to classical �pagan� sources that chronicle the life of Jesus and his followers, there are also a number of ancient hostile Jewish sources that talk about Jesus. These are written by Jewish theologians, historians and leaders who were definitely NOT sympathetic to the Christian cause. Their writings are often VERY harsh, critical and even demeaning to Jesus. But there is still much that these writings confirm.

Josephus (37-101AD)
In more detail than any other non-biblical historian, Josephus writes about Jesus in his �the Antiquities of the Jews� in 93AD. Josephus was born just four years after the crucifixion. He was a consultant for Jewish rabbis at age thirteen, was a Galilean military commander by the age of sixteen, and he was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century A.D. Under the rule of roman emperor Vespasian, Josephus was allowed to write a history of the Jews. This history includes three passages about Christians, one in which he describes the death of John the Baptist, one in which he mentions the execution of James and describes him as the brother of Jesus the Christ, and a final passage which describes Jesus as a wise man and the messiah. Now there is much controversy about the writing of Josephus, because the first discoveries of his writings are late enough to have been re-written by Christians, who are accused of making additions to the text. So to be fair, let�s take a look at a scholarly reconstruction that has removed all the possible Christian influence from the text related to Jesus:

�Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared� (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed in the latest treatment by John Meier, Marginal Jew 1:61)

Now there are many other ancient versions of Josephus� writing which are even more explicit about the nature of his miracles, his life and his status as the Christ, but let�s take this conservative version and see what we can learn. From this text, we can conclude that Jesus lived in Palestine, was a wise man and a teacher, worked amazing deeds, was accused buy the Jews, crucified under Pilate and had followers called Christians!

Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
While the earliest Talmudic writings of Jewish Rabbis appear in the 5th century, the tradition of these Rabbinic authors indicates that they are faithfully transmitting teachings from the early �Tannaitic� period of the first century BC to the second century AD. There are a number of writings from the Talmud that scholars believe refer to Jesus and many of these writings are said to use code words to describe Jesus (such as �Balaam� or �Ben Stada� or �a certain one�). But let�s be very conservative here. Let�s ONLY look at the passages that refer to Jesus in a more direct way. If we do that, there are still several ancient Talmudic passages we can examine:

�Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray� (b. Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Shabbat 11.15; b. Shabbat 104b)

�Rabbi Hisda (d. 309) said that Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba said, �What is that which is written, �No evil will befall you, nor shall any plague come near your house�? (Psalm 91:10)� �No evil will befall you� (means) that evil dreams and evil thoughts will not tempt you; �nor shall any plague come near your house� (means) that you will not have a son or a disciple who burns his food like Jesus of Nazareth.� (b. Sanhedrin 103a; cf. b. Berakhot 17b)

�Our rabbis have taught that Jesus had five disciples: Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. They brought Matthai to (to trial). He said, �Must Matthai be killed? For it is written, �When (mathai) shall I come and appear before God?�� (Psalm 92:2) They said to him, �Yes Matthai must be killed, for it is written, �When (mathai) he dies his name will perish�� (Psalm 41:5). They brought Nakai. He said to them, �Must Nakai be killed? For it is written, �The innocent (naqi) and the righteous will not slay�� (Exodus 23:7). They said to him, �Yes, Nakai must be killed, for it is written, �In secret places he slays the innocent (naqi)�� (Psalm 10:8). (b. Sanhedrin 43a; the passage continues in a similar way for Nezer, Buni and Todah)

And this, perhaps the most famous of Talmudic passages about Jesus:

�It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), �He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.� But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover. (b. Sanhedrin 43a)

From just these passages that mention Jesus by name, we can conclude that Jesus had magical powers, led the Jews away from their beliefs, had disciples who were martyred for their faith (one of whom was named Matthai), and was executed on the day before the Passover.

The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
The Toledot Yeshu is a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. It is completely anti-Christian, to be sure. There are many versions of these �retellings�, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus� first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus, and to deny the virgin birth. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let�s take a look at a portion of the text (Jesus is refered to as �Yehoshua�):

�In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam� Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu ("Yeshu" is the Jewish "name" for Jesus. It means "May His Name Be Blotted Out"). On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition. One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraven the letters of God's Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten. Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters. He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, "I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'" He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, "David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: 'The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'" The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah. The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: "This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone." Yeshu replied, "The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: 'And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,' and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says 'Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.'" Queen Helene asked the Sages: "What he says, is it in your Torah?" They replied: "It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: 'And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.' He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah." Yeshu spoke up: "Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead." A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: "This is a true sign." She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu's dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel. Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him. The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: "Wage no battle." He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment. Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done. When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: "It is spoken of me, 'I will ascend into heaven.'" He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone�Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name. Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages. Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree." They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu's followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, "This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven." Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.

Now in spite of the fact that the ancient Jews who wrote this did their best to argue for another interpretation of the Life of Jesus, they did make several claims here about Jesus. This passage, along with several others from the Toledot tradition, confirms that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, healed the lame, said that Isaiah foretold of his life, was worshipped as God, arrested by the Jews, beaten with rods, given vinegar to drink, wore a crown of thorns, rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, was betrayed by a man named Judah Iskarioto, and had followers who claimed he was resurrected and ascended, leaving an empty tomb!
comic book character...
ringworm,

Just have to have the last word, don't you!
it would be my position, if i was an astute observer, and wanted to practice Christ-like examples, and wanted to be more like my Savior, i'd simply not choose to marry, as wonderful as marriage could be.

i'd choose not to have children, inside or outside of gov't paperwork bureaucracy.

i'd choose to leave the Earth, early-on, as a young male, at his height of supremacy.

but, we're not talking about life on earth, are we? what about life after death? that's the real subject, isn't it? smile
© 24hourcampfire