P
PRmerger
Guest
Then you have to offer an explanation for why people lied about seeing Him resurrected.
And, remember, what did this lie get them but a horrific death by torture.
- Status
And, remember, what did this lie get them but a horrific death by torture.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Evidence from Tacitus:
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. . . .
Evidence from Pliny the Younger:
They 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.
Evidence from Josephus:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”
Evidence from Lucian:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [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.
Christology is my area of special expertise. Josephus might have been edited, but along with the other sources, it does provide evidence of Jesus’ historicity. There is NO evidence that Jesus did not exist. None.
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. . . .
Evidence from Pliny the Younger:
They 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.
Evidence from Josephus:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”
Evidence from Lucian:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [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.
Christology is my area of special expertise. Josephus might have been edited, but along with the other sources, it does provide evidence of Jesus’ historicity. There is NO evidence that Jesus did not exist. None.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Big problem with this. If Jesus’ followers took his body, how did they get past the Roman guards? Even if there were no guards, what were they going to do with a dead body? Carry it through the streets? When Jesus was arrested they were so afraid all the apostles but John hid in fear. They wouldn’t suddenly be so bold as to “sneak” into a heavily guarded tomb and “steal” his body. They didn’t have fast get-away cars like today’s criminals and grave-robbers do.
Fact: No one “snuck” into a heavily guarded tomb and carried out a dead body in first century Jerusalem.
And, if the Apostles were going to make up a story, they would not have had women - and all four gospels agree on this - as the first witnesses. In first century Jerusalem women had no more legal standing than a slave.
What evidence is there that Jesus did NOT exist?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Hanging was used interchangeably with crucifixion. He was hung from a cross.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Also, James and the other relatives of Jesus struggled to believe in him. But James had a conversion expierience after Jesus appeared to him and became the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Absolutely true.
If the apostles were going to make something up they wouldn’t have included doubt on the part of their own or Mary Magdalene’s lack of immediate recognition of the risen Christ.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
The first Josephus passage is regarded by many Josephus scholars as an interpolation but the second less known passage from Josephus us al it’s universally recognized by Josephus scholars as authentic Josephus .
bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.
But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
The Testimonium Flavianum
It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage “has been almost universally acknowledged” by scholars. (Feldman, “Josephus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I agree with your post.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Well who saw him resurrected? Almost universally Bible scholars agree that the Gospels were written far after the events that they described. They are in no way first hand accounts. So no one for sure know if they events happened. Mark was written first, and I had said before, it ended with the right after the women ran from the tomb. Matthew and Luke embellished upon Mark for their own audience and may have used a source named Q. John is out of left field and is the most different out of all the Gospels.
Now the burden of proof is on those that are claiming a positive. There may have been a man named Yeshua bin Yosef that lived around the time but the events, that are only recorded in the Gospels, that happened have no proof. Again at the end of Matthew the dead walked the city. That is a huge event that would have been reported by every Jewish historian at the time. There is nothing.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Where is the evidence you talked about that Jesus didn’t exist?
A man named Yeshua ben Yosef, who performed miracles and attracted a huge gathering of disciples and was eventually crucified for his claims and rose from the dead and established a church? Yeah, it could have been anyone. Not! It is Christ, of course. The very same Christ we read about in the Bible. Oh, and Mark’s gospel was based on an eyewitness account, and John, of course, was an eyewitness, one of Jesus’ inner circle.
There is more than ample proof that Jesus did, in fact, exist in human history.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
It is not my burden to prove he didn’t exist. It is your burden to prove he exists. John was written nearly over 100 years after the events were supposed to happen. Mark was at least 30 years after the events. For as much as happened in the Gospels there is very, very little evidence. The problem with eye witness accounts is that after time what was reported to have been seen could easily change. Why else is it one of the weakest forms of evidence in courts.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
It is your responsibility to back up the statements you make with hard evidence. You stated unequivocally that there exists evidence that Jesus did not exist. What, specifically, is that evidence?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
So, you’re saying that history books written today should only focus on the things the writer has personally witnessed. Doesn’t make any sense to me.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
I did not say that. What I am saying is that after 30 years from the supposed events an eyewitness isn’t a great source. Things can be changed or forgotten. We also have to take into consideration the audience each of the writers was writing for.
Then I will change my statement. There is insufficient proof that a person named Jesus existed. Even if he did the claims being made about the actions he partook in have no proof and no historical records. He may have had a following but there is too little know to be 100% sure.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
There is sufficient proof. People just don’t want to believe it.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Absolutely right. There is more proof that Jesus existed than Plato or Aristotle or Alexander the Great.
A
Abu
Guest
In 1911 the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued the decision that Matthew is the true author of the Gospel published under his name; the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew before the destruction of Jerusalem. [From *What Does The Church Really Say About The Bible, Edith Myers, The Wanderer Press, 1979].
Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalist and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See Sheehan/Joseph, *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2002, p 89, 93]
Not only are the facts of Jesus’ miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.
Very revealing is The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, on the origins and dating of the Gospels. As Bishop John Charles Thomas writes in the foreword: “There is nothing in the least unscientific in postulating that there was only a brief period of oral transmission before some of the Gospel materials began to be set down.”
The majority of “scholars” fail again. See the works of Jean Carmignac, John A. T. Robinson, and Claude Tresmontant, who mainly date the NT books prior to A.D. 70, with some of them written in the 30s.
Tresmontant shows in 318 pages, that “all four of the Gospels, as well as some of the other New Testament books, were evidently translations into Greek from earlier texts originally composed in Hebrew.” (p 319). Others agreeing include Jean Carmignac, Greek linguist John Wenham, the earliest being Anglican Bishop John Robinson.
For Matthew, there is evidence from the early church to support an Aramaic original in Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Augustine.
Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalist and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See Sheehan/Joseph, *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2002, p 89, 93]
Not only are the facts of Jesus’ miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.
Very revealing is The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, on the origins and dating of the Gospels. As Bishop John Charles Thomas writes in the foreword: “There is nothing in the least unscientific in postulating that there was only a brief period of oral transmission before some of the Gospel materials began to be set down.”
The majority of “scholars” fail again. See the works of Jean Carmignac, John A. T. Robinson, and Claude Tresmontant, who mainly date the NT books prior to A.D. 70, with some of them written in the 30s.
Tresmontant shows in 318 pages, that “all four of the Gospels, as well as some of the other New Testament books, were evidently translations into Greek from earlier texts originally composed in Hebrew.” (p 319). Others agreeing include Jean Carmignac, Greek linguist John Wenham, the earliest being Anglican Bishop John Robinson.
For Matthew, there is evidence from the early church to support an Aramaic original in Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Augustine.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
, Edith Myers, The Wanderer Press, 1979].
Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalist and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See Sheehan/Joseph, *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2002, p 89, 93]
Not only are the facts of Jesus’ miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.
Very revealing is The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, on the origins and dating of the Gospels. As Bishop John Charles Thomas writes in the foreword: “There is nothing in the least unscientific in postulating that there was only a brief period of oral transmission before some of the Gospel materials began to be set down.”
The majority of “scholars” fail again. See the works of Jean Carmignac, John A. T. Robinson, and Claude Tresmontant, who mainly date the NT books prior to A.D. 70, with some of them written in the 30s.
Tresmontant shows in 318 pages, that “all four of the Gospels, as well as some of the other New Testament books, were evidently translations into Greek from earlier texts originally composed in Hebrew.” (p 319). Others agreeing include Jean Carmignac, Greek linguist John Wenham, the earliest being Anglican Bishop John Robinson.
For Matthew, there is evidence from the early church to support an Aramaic original in Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Augustine.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Wasn’t Mark an eyewitness as well?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
- Status