if jesus did not exist then how can the following be true?
“Jesus can walk on water, but Chuck Norris can walk on Jesus”. it’s in the bible, in the back, right were chuck decided it should go.
Pookie,
without any trash talking, what are your intentions?
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Pookie,
without any trash talking, what are your intentions?[/quote]
To never to accept anything for true which I do not clearly know to be such.
[quote]pookie wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Pookie,
without any trash talking, what are your intentions?
To never to accept anything for true which I do not clearly know to be such.[/quote]
What are your intentions for people who follow the Bible?
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
pookie wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Pookie,
without any trash talking, what are your intentions?
To never to accept anything for true which I do not clearly know to be such.
What are your intentions for people who follow the Bible?
[/quote]
a good flogging.
TSB
The fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself.
"Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a “marginal Jew” about whom we have so little information:
As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a “blip” on the screen.
Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party.
"It is only because Christians later made Jesus a “celebrity” that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed.
Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) …the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3]
Harris adds that “Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented” Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 -
Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed “Messiahs” of the time.
Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus’ followers.
To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it.
Jesus never used the established “news organs” of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
Jesus’ teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!"
Inspite of all this, Jesus was still mentioned by many Roman historians after his time! Tacitus, Josephus.
Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian. Are all good examples of this as I have already posted.
In addition to this many thousands of Christians went to their death for their beliefs. How many people would die for the truth, much less a lie? They surely did not make up a lie and then die for it! The mere suggestion is preposterous!
But in the end, it should not be surprising that faith is needed to entirely realize who Jesus Christ really was.
We are reminded throughout the Old Testement and the New that “faith” is paramount!
Hebrews 11:6
“But without faith it is impossible to please God: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. [/quote]
Why? We have plenty of information about Julius Cesar from non-Roman sources. If Jesus had been an actual historical figure, any historian documenting that period would not be doing his job properly if he didn’t mention him.
Oddly, all the documentation we have seems to begin decades after the fact, after the myth of Jesus had already been established.
But a lot of “blips” get mentioned by various writers of the time. Josephus himself writes about 19 different Jesuses would would’ve been contemporaries to THE Jesus.
Plenty of other “ordinary folks” get mentioned. Merchants, sailors, fishermen, etc. Why aren’t they invisible “blips?”
It’s almost as if he didn’t even exists, isn’t it? He wrote nothing, met no one of import, was seen by no one except the earliest Christians… If you suppose the following: Jesus never existed, his “myth” was constructed by the earlier Christians and then propagated; what happens? Nothing. It fits perfectly will all available secular sources.
Yes, all later, when people learned of the myth of Jesus. The existence of the myth itself is extremely well documented.
[quote]Harris adds that “Roman writers could hardly be expected
to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented” Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss? [/quote]
Oddly again, other agitating “Jesuses” have been documented.
Jesus ben Pandira or Jesus ben Ananias for example. There’s even reports of a crucified one: Jesus ben Stada.
Good of you to bring this up. Many events of the “Passion” are not historically coherent.
Romans were not in the habit of giving arrested rebels and scoundrels “trials” before executing them. Philo of Alexandria spoke of Pilate’s “continual murders of people untried and uncondemned.” Why did they make an exception for Jesus? Could it simply by a dreamt up story?
And Quintillian wrote: “Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.”
Victims of crucifixions were usually left hanging for long periods, as to have the most visual impact. It doesn’t make for good examples to allow a crucified to be taken down a few hours later and buried in a tomb.
Of course, the Passion of Jesus is simply the common mythological tale of the man-god dying and being reborn. That’s the important part the earliest mythers wanted to relate. That the details didn’t fit the current realities of the time was not important.
No real Jesus equals no real followers. Not until later.
Yet there are details about many of those. See Jesus ben Stada above. And of course many others not named “Jesus.”
That same situation applied to all his contemporaries. Yet many of them left unassailable evidence of their passage.
Still, according to the story he claimed to be the “Son of God”, he threw temper tantrums in temples; he performed miracles; healed the sick; etc. Don’t you think those things would register somewhere?
Even without PNN camera crews around, you’d think that some of his contemporaries would have made a note of it.
How come everything appears 50 years and more after the fact?
So he wasn’t “staying under the radar.” Why doesn’t he register anywhere?
You’re making my point. He was doing everything to attract attention to himself, yet no one noticed until decades later.
The tale says he read in synagogues; he preached to crowds; he performed miracles at marriages; walked on water. Was the high society so uptight that it would snob even a true miracle worker?
Or is the alternate theory that there’s was no real Jesus, and no miracles, and, of course, no written history of those non-events a better fit on available facts?
Yes, yes. Josephus again. In a single paragraph of the Testimonium Flavonium, Josephus touches on every important aspect of Jesus’ life:
- The existence of Jesus
- He was “more than a man” (…if it be lawful to call him a man…)
- He performed miracles
- He was a teacher
- He was the Messiah
- He was condemned by Jewish clergy
- He was sentenced by Pilate
- He was crucified
- He resurrected 3 days later
- He was fulfilling prophecy
In one single paragraph, Josephus conveniently confirms the whole story. Astonishing, isn’t it? You won’t be surprised to learn that many scholars consider the whole paragraph quite suspect, and some claim it is an outright forgery.
The other problem is that not a single writer, not Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius, Cyprian, Justin, etc. makes a single reference to Josephus’ amazing paragraph before the 4th century.
In the 3rd century, Origen, a Church leader, spent years debating the pagan Celsus. Origen wrote reams of texts to support his views. He quoted Josephus extensively, BUT NEVER MENTIONED THE AMAZING PARAGRAPH? Why? It would’ve been the best support he could have presented for Jesus. So why didn’t he use it? Because that paragraph had not yet been written. The forgery was to come later.
I think I’ve pretty much established the stupidity of that argument in my previous answer. Millions of people have died for beliefs they held. That means only that they where ready to die for those beliefs, not that those beliefs where justified or even true in anyway.
I knew that one was coming.
Yes, now that you realize that proving the existence of Jesus is impossible, you’ll fall back on the “faith” argument. Heck, I’m sure you’ll argue that Jesus left no trace because God wanted faith to be a prerequisite. If Jesus could really be shown to have lived, you could have some “reason” for faith.
It’s probably God’s design for Jesus to have left no tangible proof of his supposed passage on Earth. To follow him, you must rely 100% on faith.
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Unfortunately, it’s also Religion Design 101: always have a fall back explanation to counter reason with. Jesus didn’t exist? Or can’t be shown to have actually existed? No problem, we have faith he existed.
Bow to the God of Circular Reasoning.
[quote]Hebrews 11:6
“But without faith it is impossible to please God: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”[/quote]
…and a reviler of those who diligently useth their brains. For verily I say unto thee, critical thinking is abomination before the LORD.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
pookie wrote:
What are your intentions for people who follow the Bible?[/quote]
Individually, or as a group?
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself.
Why? We have plenty of information about Julius Cesar from non-Roman sources. If Jesus had been an actual historical figure, any historian documenting that period would not be doing his job properly if he didn’t mention him.[/quote]
He was basically a “peasant.” Did they write about common folk back then? Do they now? He hung with the lowly. He was not “political” in any way. Nor was he wealthy. On top of all that he was “hung on a tree” to die like a common criminal. That act alone would negate anything that even might have been written about him.
The comparison to Julius Cesar would be laughable if there were not so much hate seething from most of your anti Christan posts.
You need to actually stop the hate thing pookie. But you’ve been told that before huh?
[quote]pookie wrote:
In one single paragraph, Josephus conveniently confirms the whole story. Astonishing, isn’t it? You won’t be surprised to learn that many scholars consider the whole paragraph quite suspect, and some claim it is an outright forgery. [/quote]
And many consider it to be very real. And these scholars are well aware of his writing style etc.
Keep reaching pookie…
[quote]pookie wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
pookie wrote:
What are your intentions for people who follow the Bible?
Individually, or as a group?
[/quote]
Both
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself.
Why? We have plenty of information about Julius Cesar from non-Roman sources. If Jesus had been an actual historical figure, any historian documenting that period would not be doing his job properly if he didn’t mention him.
He was basically a “peasant.” Did they write about common folk back then? Do they now? He hung with the lowly. He was not “political” in any way. Nor was he wealthy. On top of all that he was “hung on a tree” to die like a common criminal. That act alone would negate anything that even might have been written about him.
The comparison to Julius Cesar would be laughable if there were not so much hate seething from most of your anti Christan posts.
You need to actually stop the hate thing pookie. But you’ve been told that before huh?
[/quote]
what about mother teresa? she was a “peasant”. there is plenty written about her.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Unfortunately, it’s also Religion Design 101: always have a fall back explanation to counter reason with. Jesus didn’t exist? Or can’t be shown to have actually existed? No problem, we have faith he existed.[/quote]
You make a good point!
When I think about it, it does happen all the time.
A person is made up by a bunch of people who want to be followers of someone, but can’t find anyone good enough, so they lie.
They end up ticking off the government so bad with their lies that thousands upon thousands go to their graves because they will not recant a lie they made up. And volia …2000 years later there are 2.1 billion followers!
Oh wait…no I guess that has never happened before.
(Actually, I have more faith that Jesus existed than I do that “pookie” exists! Who are you anyway? Are you a computer program that hates Christians? LOL)
[quote]pookie wrote:
Even without PNN camera crews around, you’d think that some of his contemporaries would have made a note of it.[/quote]
Some of them did.
Ever read first and second Peter? He was a “contemporary” and he made note of it.
Hold on let me do it for you oh great Christ denier.
pookie: “No no, you can’t ever quote anything from the Bible. I will not accept anyones work who actually walked with Christ, that would be…um somehow unfair…yeat that’s it. For example, how do I know Peter lived? Huh? See…it’s all a lie I tell you it is …it is…”
[quote]mazilla wrote:
what about mother teresa? she was a “peasant”. there is plenty written about her.
[/quote]
Give it 2000 years or so, it will be amazing how many people will forget.
Jesus on the other hand, I don’t think so…
[quote]mazilla wrote:
what about mother teresa? she was a “peasant”. there is plenty written about her.
[/quote]
I agree, and I think she is an exception. But today we do have exceptions because we have world wide around the clock media coverage.
You see 2000 years ago they didn’t have that. And on top of that NO ONE who was not somehow politically, acedemically, militarily or financially (or in some way) successful was written about.
But inspite of all of this he was written about by Jospehus, Tacticus, Pliny, Thallus and others. Even though it was after Christs death it was still quite remarkable.
It became more remarkable as his followers grew in number.
(You know…the followers who made up the whole story just so they could be ridiculed, tortured and killed…yea those followers. 
Jesus is even written about in the Jewish Talmud of all things! You would think that the Jews would want to supress his very existance. Of course they did give him a shot or two if you read what was written below:
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”
He lived, and he died, for our sins. I suggest that you come to terms with that and stop listening to Internet Atheists who are headed in the wrong direction valuing their cynical, illogical conclusions over the truth.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself.
Why? We have plenty of information about Julius Cesar from non-Roman sources. If Jesus had been an actual historical figure, any historian documenting that period would not be doing his job properly if he didn’t mention him.
He was basically a “peasant.” Did they write about common folk back then? Do they now? He hung with the lowly. He was not “political” in any way. Nor was he wealthy. On top of all that he was “hung on a tree” to die like a common criminal. That act alone would negate anything that even might have been written about him.
The comparison to Julius Cesar would be laughable if there were not so much hate seething from most of your anti Christan posts.
You need to actually stop the hate thing pookie. But you’ve been told that before huh?[/quote]
Cute. Ignore the remaining 95% of what I wrote. Maybe no one will notice, right?
And anyway, the comparison with Cesar wasn’t “laughable” when you were the one amazed at having “as much information as we do about Jesus.”
Make up your mind. Is there an amazing amount of information about Jesus, or was he a poor unknown peasant no one noticed? Stop flip-flopping everytime one of your arguments is shot down.
Poor Zeb, I told you trying to prove that Jesus actually existed was doomed from the onset. You can’t prove the existence of someone who was never there. That’s what evidence does: it helps establish fact. And the fact is: No Jesus. Ever.
You’re flailing desperately, grasping at any available straws to try and justify your beliefs. Hate? On the contrary, Zebby, old boy, this is extremely amusing.
Ol’Zeb, he likes to paste scripture left and right, but he can’t even show his beloved Jeebus ever existed at all!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:
Even without PNN camera crews around, you’d think that some of his contemporaries would have made a note of it.
Some of them did.
Ever read first and second Peter? He was a “contemporary” and he made note of it.
Hold on let me do it for you oh great Christ denier.
pookie: “No no, you can’t ever quote anything from the Bible. I will not accept anyones work who actually walked with Christ, that would be…um somehow unfair…yeat that’s it. For example, how do I know Peter lived? Huh? See…it’s all a lie I tell you it is …it is…”[/quote]
Don’t be stupid. The Bible is the source document for the myth of Jesus. Of course you can’t use it to justify itself.
You’ve been arguing about all those secular sources confirming the existence of Jesus. Now you’re back on the Bible?
Not much support for ol’Jeebus outside the Big Book, is it?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:
In one single paragraph, Josephus conveniently confirms the whole story. Astonishing, isn’t it? You won’t be surprised to learn that many scholars consider the whole paragraph quite suspect, and some claim it is an outright forgery.
And many consider it to be very real. And these scholars are well aware of his writing style etc.
Keep reaching pookie…[/quote]
Is that your new quoting style? Pull stuff out of context before replying?
I see you conveniently omitted my point about Origen never quoting that paragraph of Josephus. No one ever even noticing that paragraph until the 4th century A.D.
But hey, keep hitting that straw man.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
pookie wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
pookie wrote:
What are your intentions for people who follow the Bible?
Individually, or as a group?
Both[/quote]
For the individuals part, could you supply me with a list of all followers of the Bible.
Alphabetically would be nice.
Thanks.