Who is Jesus?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]forlife wrote:

Absolutely. Do you also know that it is possible (reason) that what you believe to be true (faith) is actually false? That your god does not in fact exist?

If so, kudos on your intellectual honesty. That is relatively rare among Christians (especially among fundamentalist Christians), since most of them insist that their belief is actually fact, and that people who disagree with them must be wrong.

Even reason can lead you astray, but reason along with objective evidence will lead to accurate conclusions about the objective universe far more often than faith alone.[/quote]

Ahh, this is good stuff. So glad to have a refreshingly honest discussion on this topic.

Yes, I the possibility of truth always contains the possibility for falseness. The dichotomy is inseparable.

and yes, reason can lead you astray - thus there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors and in verification when possible.

Reason supports my faith - my faith dictates my actions. My faith does not provide conclusions about the universe (nor does yours), that is the role of reason. The role of faith is to determine the course of actions we will follow in our lives. As you stated earlier, your faith in your reason determines the manner in which you lead your life and the same applies for me.

142

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
thebigbus wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
OK - Historical records outside of Scripture mentioning Christ

Cornelius Tacitus - Governor of Asia
Suetonius - Roman Historian
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of Samosata
The Letter from Mara Bar-Serapion
Julis Africanus
Thallus
Phlegon
Hegesippus

Those are just a few - plus over 5,000 manuscripts of the NT Scriptures alone, many (over 800) within 60 years of Christ’s death.

How many manuscripts of Plato? 7 - the oldest more than 1200 years after his death.

Aristotle? only 5 and none less than 1400 years after his death

Herodotus? - only 8 and all 1300 years after the original

Euripedes? - 9 and all 1300 years after the original.

Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. 8 In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1600’s), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. 9 This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD.

ANYWAY - the point is -there is more evidence that Christ lived than any great historical figure of that era.

Whether or not he was the promised Messiah, the Annointed Christ? - well that is for each individual to decide, but stop wasting time disputing what has been definitively proven already.

Diety or not - he lived. You have to decide what to do with his message and his claims.

That’s why it is called Faith.

Josephus mentions him as well. :wink:

You have totally missed the point (deliberately or accidentally.) None of those writers reference Jesus as a fact. They talk about the beliefs of Christians, which is a totally different thing.

Jesus Christ as one person / deity never existed. There were numerous figures; the stories about them were conglomerated with long standing myths and legends into one story and one person. This is extremely common with the development of religions. If you have a hard time with that then there is no point continuing the discussion because your faith blinds you to logic.

The other famous figures who you mention also most likely were conglomerations of numerous real people who lived.

Your talk of textual reconstruction of the New Testament is farcical. There may be 5,600 documents but most of them are copies of each other. Many of the copies are error strewn. An entire branch of study is dedicated to piecing together the history of which document copies from which document.

There have been plenty of books about this; a good starting place is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman. Don’t worry; Bart is a believer so you don’t need to be scared about the tissue thin fabric of your beliefs being destroyed.

Unequivocally there is not more evidence that Jesus lived than any other major figure from history, to say so is beyond idiotic. It has not been definitively proven. To state that it has is a flat out lie.

That is why religion clings so strongly to faith as a value. The last thing they want you to do is ask questions.

bart ehrman is not a Christian. He is a former fundamentalist Christian, who delights in breaking the faith of his students at UNC.

If you were looking for a believer why not use Ehrman’s mentor who is also noted as one of the best if not the best in textual criticism. Metzger
[/quote]

I was basing the fact that Ehrman is a Christian on the fact that he claims to be a Christian in the book I referenced. If he has changed his mind since then I am not surprised, after all he spends his life reading the Bible.

143

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Ahh, this is good stuff. So glad to have a refreshingly honest discussion on this topic.[/quote]

I agree, very refreshing to talk with someone who isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions, and is humble enough to admit that he may not have all the answers.

I think faith invokes conclusions about the universe, at least for most people. If you are of the Catholic faith, you believe there really is a trinitarian god that created the universe, that miracles have been performed by Catholic saints over the centuries, etc. If you are of the Muslim faith, you believe that Muhammad was the chosen prophet of the one and only true god, that Allah created men from “a clot of blood” at the same time he created the jinn from fire, etc. All of these beliefs are about objective reality, not about the values that are informed by that reality.

More accurately, my values determine the manner in which I lead my life. I think love, integrity, and courage are important regardless of whether or not there is a god(s).

144

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
thebigbus wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

You have totally missed the point (deliberately or accidentally.) None of those writers reference Jesus as a fact. They talk about the beliefs of Christians, which is a totally different thing.

Jesus Christ as one person / deity never existed. There were numerous figures; the stories about them were conglomerated with long standing myths and legends into one story and one person. This is extremely common with the development of religions. If you have a hard time with that then there is no point continuing the discussion because your faith blinds you to logic.

The other famous figures who you mention also most likely were conglomerations of numerous real people who lived.

Your talk of textual reconstruction of the New Testament is farcical. There may be 5,600 documents but most of them are copies of each other. Many of the copies are error strewn. An entire branch of study is dedicated to piecing together the history of which document copies from which document.

There have been plenty of books about this; a good starting place is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman. Don’t worry; Bart is a believer so you don’t need to be scared about the tissue thin fabric of your beliefs being destroyed.

Unequivocally there is not more evidence that Jesus lived than any other major figure from history, to say so is beyond idiotic. It has not been definitively proven. To state that it has is a flat out lie.

That is why religion clings so strongly to faith as a value. The last thing they want you to do is ask questions.

LOL - talk about starting with false presuppositions! Seriously, in my upbringing my father taught us that “Truth never fears a Challenge” and so I read and continue to read all of the competing philosophers, writers, thinkers, agnostics, atheists et al.

True Christianity encourages the examination of all beliefs and doctrines so that if ever there is an error or misbelief in my head - it can be corrected and I can continue in my path of following truth.

Your statement proves my point - if we belief that any historical figured ever existed - then Christ existed too as the evidence for his life outweighs that for any other historical figure.

You simply assume as fact something you cannot prove (conglomeration) and then deride me for assuming something as fact that I cannot prove (accuracy of historical records). You have modern writers who support your position and I have modern writers who support mine. Mine has born the weight of millennium of support - yours is a modern aberration.

As I said in another post - agnostics are often more dogmatic than the worst inquisitioners.
[/quote]

OK, please point me to the proof of the existence of Jesus. You have only provided references to people who talked about Jesus as someone that other people believed in. That is not anything approaching proof of his existence.

Just because lots of people have written about Jesus over the last 1,500 years, that is not proof.

Lots of people have written about King Arthur however there is very little evidence that he ever existed. There is still more evidence for King Arthur than for Jesus. (It is most likely that the Arthur legend is another conglomeration)

145

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:

Absolutely. Do you also know that it is possible (reason) that what you believe to be true (faith) is actually false? That your god does not in fact exist?

If so, kudos on your intellectual honesty. That is relatively rare among Christians (especially among fundamentalist Christians), since most of them insist that their belief is actually fact, and that people who disagree with them must be wrong.

Even reason can lead you astray, but reason along with objective evidence will lead to accurate conclusions about the objective universe far more often than faith alone.

Ahh, this is good stuff. So glad to have a refreshingly honest discussion on this topic.

Yes, I the possibility of truth always contains the possibility for falseness. The dichotomy is inseparable.

and yes, reason can lead you astray - thus there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors and in verification when possible.

Reason supports my faith - my faith dictates my actions. My faith does not provide conclusions about the universe (nor does yours), that is the role of reason. The role of faith is to determine the course of actions we will follow in our lives. As you stated earlier, your faith in your reason determines the manner in which you lead your life and the same applies for me.[/quote]

Serious question, how did you come to have your current religion? Did you study a number of religions, look at the pros and cons of each and weigh up the one which seemed most likely or were you inducted into a Christian church as a child and then built your belief system within the framework of what you were being taught by the Church?

Where people get their beliefs from is something which I find fascinating.

For the record, I was christened in the Church of England and attended church every Sunday. As I grew older I was naturally a really inquisitive person so I read like crazy. I moved to more of a deist position before spending a time relating more with Eastern religions (as my study of quantum theory at University lined up with a lot of the Eastern teachings.) Finally, the more I read the more I realised that you didn’t actually need the deity to make the whole thing tick.

146

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
thebigbus wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
OK - Historical records outside of Scripture mentioning Christ

Cornelius Tacitus - Governor of Asia
Suetonius - Roman Historian
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of Samosata
The Letter from Mara Bar-Serapion
Julis Africanus
Thallus
Phlegon
Hegesippus

Those are just a few - plus over 5,000 manuscripts of the NT Scriptures alone, many (over 800) within 60 years of Christ’s death.

How many manuscripts of Plato? 7 - the oldest more than 1200 years after his death.

Aristotle? only 5 and none less than 1400 years after his death

Herodotus? - only 8 and all 1300 years after the original

Euripedes? - 9 and all 1300 years after the original.

Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. 8 In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1600’s), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. 9 This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD.

ANYWAY - the point is -there is more evidence that Christ lived than any great historical figure of that era.

Whether or not he was the promised Messiah, the Annointed Christ? - well that is for each individual to decide, but stop wasting time disputing what has been definitively proven already.

Diety or not - he lived. You have to decide what to do with his message and his claims.

That’s why it is called Faith.

Josephus mentions him as well. :wink:

You have totally missed the point (deliberately or accidentally.) None of those writers reference Jesus as a fact. They talk about the beliefs of Christians, which is a totally different thing.

Jesus Christ as one person / deity never existed. There were numerous figures; the stories about them were conglomerated with long standing myths and legends into one story and one person. This is extremely common with the development of religions. If you have a hard time with that then there is no point continuing the discussion because your faith blinds you to logic.

The other famous figures who you mention also most likely were conglomerations of numerous real people who lived.

Your talk of textual reconstruction of the New Testament is farcical. There may be 5,600 documents but most of them are copies of each other. Many of the copies are error strewn. An entire branch of study is dedicated to piecing together the history of which document copies from which document.

There have been plenty of books about this; a good starting place is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman. Don’t worry; Bart is a believer so you don’t need to be scared about the tissue thin fabric of your beliefs being destroyed.

Unequivocally there is not more evidence that Jesus lived than any other major figure from history, to say so is beyond idiotic. It has not been definitively proven. To state that it has is a flat out lie.

That is why religion clings so strongly to faith as a value. The last thing they want you to do is ask questions.

bart ehrman is not a Christian. He is a former fundamentalist Christian, who delights in breaking the faith of his students at UNC.

If you were looking for a believer why not use Ehrman’s mentor who is also noted as one of the best if not the best in textual criticism. Metzger

I was basing the fact that Ehrman is a Christian on the fact that he claims to be a Christian in the book I referenced. If he has changed his mind since then I am not surprised, after all he spends his life reading the Bible.[/quote]

oh so people that spend thier life reading the Bible all leave the faith? or are you just over reaching with that statement. Why pick a book that favors your view point? Is metzger inferior in your eyes because He was a firm believer?

147

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:

Serious question, how did you come to have your current religion? Did you study a number of religions, look at the pros and cons of each and weigh up the one which seemed most likely or were you inducted into a Christian church as a child and then built your belief system within the framework of what you were being taught by the Church?

Where people get their beliefs from is something which I find fascinating.

For the record, I was christened in the Church of England and attended church every Sunday. As I grew older I was naturally a really inquisitive person so I read like crazy. I moved to more of a deist position before spending a time relating more with Eastern religions (as my study of quantum theory at University lined up with a lot of the Eastern teachings.) Finally, the more I read the more I realized that you didn’t actually need the deity to make the whole thing tick.[/quote]

Great Question! Love a curious intellect.

I was raised in a Christian home in the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition. I too was a curious individual and read voraciously - I was also constantly challenged by my father to attack my beliefs and to test them for validity continuously. I too studied other faiths, finding many incredible truths in Taosim and Buddhism. (I call myself the first Daoist-buddhist-pagan Baptist in History!) My education has been well-rounded and wide-ranging.

At one point in my life - I willingly abandoned all pre-suppositions and started from scratch in building my belief system. I came to the reasoned scientific conclusion that the universe had a designer and creator (outside of any religious connotation) and called that entity the Creator. From there, I reasoned that if there was a designer - there was an intention or purpose for the design and I needed to know my place within the design. I can go through the whole process, but it was a very lengthy one for me. Every one should undertake this exercise at some point in their life.

The point is, I believe what I believe because I have chosen to and I can find nothing invalid (by rational thought) in what I believe. You would be surprised how often I disagree with other Christians because they willingly perpetuate invalid doctrines and how often I find commonality with various other faiths.

Now - someone mentioned earlier that religious people often resort to dogmatism and insist that their beliefs are true and all others all false - well, there is a vein of validity in this.

There is a path of truth - ultimate over-riding truth. Everyone knows this. There is a true explanation of the universe and human life that contains no errors or falseness in it. Some people believe that they know the truth and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong - well, if they actually did have it all perfectly right - then there would be validity in this claim. They can be evolutionist or creationists, christian or muslim, agnostic or deist. All say they have the truly true!

Reason dictates that they all cannot be right. Statistics says that the probability is many contain some truth, some contain none. BUT, at least one is perfectly right.

That is what I seek in my life - to know ultimate truth and to live by it. Living by any other standard is a lesser path and unenlightened living.

Does that answer your question?

148

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I came to the reasoned scientific conclusion that the universe had a designer and creator (outside of any religious connotation) and called that entity the Creator.[/quote]

Out of curiosity, did you consider in your search where the Creator came from? What about the possibility that the universe, and the matter/energy that comprises it, has always existed without needing a “Creator” to create it? Or the possibility that an infinite series of universes exists?

Why did you decide on just one “Creator”? Did you consider that there could be many “Creators”, and/or many universes?

[quote]That is what I seek in my life - to know ultimate truth and to live by it. Living by any other standard is a lesser path and unenlightened living.
[/quote]

Well said, that is my view as well.

149

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
I came to the reasoned scientific conclusion that the universe had a designer and creator (outside of any religious connotation) and called that entity the Creator.

Out of curiosity, did you consider in your search where the Creator came from? What about the possibility that the universe, and the matter/energy that comprises it, has always existed without needing a “Creator” to create it? Or the possibility that an infinite series of universes exists?

Why did you decide on just one “Creator”? Did you consider that there could be many “Creators”, and/or many universes?

That is what I seek in my life - to know ultimate truth and to live by it. Living by any other standard is a lesser path and unenlightened living.

Well said, that is my view as well.
[/quote]

Indeed - there is the potentiality for many things outside of our created universe and the nature and number of the designer/creator is supernatural (in the sense of being beyond our natural world). But let’s not get too far ahead - this extra-natural existence is a moot point to me, since it is beyond present knowing, even beyond comprehension. My point at this stage is to state that this (the universe was designed/created) was the starting point for the creation of a personal belief system. I exist within this present system - this natural world and have been put here by design.

Glad to hear it - knew I liked you!

150

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
I think it is silly to think that one’s five senses and limited ability to draw conclusions based on the assembling of previously conceived ideas, means there is nothing else in existence.

I agree, but who said this? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Then again, it isn’t evidence of evidence either.

Instead of concluding “there is nothing else in existence”, the honest approach seems to conclude that “we don’t know”. This means concluding that Christianity could in fact be objectively correct, but it is no more likely to be correct than Islam, Buddhism, or atheism.

Which is why I’m an agnostic. I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t have all the answers. I try to live my life fully each day, informed by my core values, and if it turns out there is more to life after I die, all the better. [/quote]

The evidence is all around you. To know the entire history and make up of any single object is to know everything. In a single grain of sand you have the answer to where everything comes from and what makes everything up. If you knew the entire history of a single grain of sand, or anything for that matter, you would be able to unravel the history of the universe. If you knew everything that makes it up, you would know how everything exists in the state it does, and why.

Do not mistake your failure to ask questions, with a lack of evidence. You perhaps haven’t asked the right ones or do not care, but that is not lack of evidence.

151

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You know, that wasn’t all that funny about 15 years ago when I first heard it.[/quote]

I’m not being humorous. Seriously. Wash it out.

152

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You know, that wasn’t all that funny about 15 years ago when I first heard it.[/quote]

I’m not being humorous. Seriously. Wash it out.

153

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:
There is no way to prove or disprove any of these ancient people lived. Prove Aristotle live, prove Pythagoras lived, prove Julius Caesar lived, prove Khufu lived, prove Cleopatra lived…You can’t when you break it down, all you have is second hand information based on second hand sources which puts us at a minimum f 4 degrees of separation from actually being able to know. So if you don’t believe Jesus lived then don’t. You can’t prove anybody lived really.

Right. All we have are stories from the past.

I believe Jesus was real. The truthfulness of him being the son of god is what’s worth debating, in my eyes.

Correct, who he was can be debated, but whether or not he existed is pointless. There is more written about Jesus than any other person ever. As anything thing can be the fact that he lived is as historically solid as anything can be.

Utter utter bullshit.

The only reason that you could possibly say that there is more written about him than anyone else is that the Bible is the most widely distributed book.

There is more written about the Easter bunny than Obama therefore the Easter Bunny is real and Obama is a figment of your imagination.

I seriously doubt there are more books about the easter bunny than obama. There are thousands of books written about Jesus…There is two millenniums worth of history there. Lot’s and lots of people wrote books about him. I didn’t say that proves he lived, I am saying that you cannot say anybody else lived with any more certainty than you can Jesus. There’s lot’s of books about George Washington, but we have no first hand account of his existence and hence cannot prove he is anything thing more than a grand American fairy tale. Such is the way with historic figures, we have to take on faith that our historical facts written by other people who likely were not present either, are telling the truth.

Do you know what a first hand account is? It’s someone who was there at the time writing about it.

Here is a link to a website with copies of literally hundreds of documents that George Washington actually signed

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/index.html

Here is a portrait of him, painted whilst he was still alive.

Compare that to our mate Chuy for whom we have a few passing references written by people who are writing not about facts but about the beliefs of a group of people over a hundred years after his alleged life.

If you can’t see the difference then your faith truly is blind as well as stupid.

You can’t prove he ever lived. Did you meet him? How can you prove that the author simply didn’t make it up? Perhaps he was an instrument of british conspiracy that failed.

Peter was with Jesus, he wrote about him. He too, would be a first hand account would he not, or is he made up too? Do you not see the slippery slope you are on? You are simply taking it on faith that these historians, authors, etc. are not making everything up. To say that fact that Jesus was alive and all the stuff written about him, and all the interactions are a fantasy you have to apply the same scrutiny to all historical events and people to which you are not personally privy. You can’t say something about one thing but then claim the rules don’t apply to things you think are true. The rules apply to everything. You can’t make it up as you go along, there is no integrity in that.

Bring me any historical fact and I can say it’s made up and you can’t prove it isn’t.

Are you really that dense or is it that you are so blinded by your faith?

Do you really think that the document known as The Gospel of Peter was written by Peter? It was written after the suposed timescale of the life of Peter so how was it a first hand witness account? It varies considerably from Mathew and Luke though it is likely that it was also based on the traditions of the Q gospel that Mathew and Luke were copied from.

Actually if you want to quote the gospel of Peter then it works against your claim that Jesus really existed as it was docetistic.

Gospel of Peter? LOL! Would that be one of the lost books, 'cause I have never heard of it…

So, to what were you referring when you stated that ‘Peter was with Jesus, he wrote about him’[/quote]

1 Peter and 2 Peter. These are his letters in the Bible. There are only 4 gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and yes they were written after Jesus’ death.

154

Firstly, there are several other gospels, they just were not included by the first council of Nicea in their conglomeration.

Secondly, there is very little chance that The First Epistle of Peter was written by Peter due to references to the Septuagiant translation of the Hebrew bible which Peter would not have had access.

The Second Epistle was very unlikely to have been written by the same person as the first due to the stylistic differences. It could have been written by Peter though that seems unlikely especially given that it references his death.

155

let me start by saying I respect everyone’s freedom to believe as they see fit.

my belief is that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of the Living God. and the Bible is the inspired infallible word of God.

empires have twisted and misused information to achieve their own ends - to control and exploit their subjects, to tax, to wage war, to enslave, etc.
such is the way of those who desire power over other people. These fear-mongers will be held accountable for their actions.
the acts of men do not invalidate truth however, and as is often said - the devil quotes scripture for his own purpose.

because I believe in an all powerful God, I also believe in His ability to protect His word. Written by men that were led by the spirit, and compiled by men led by the spirit.

full understanding of God’s ways are not requisite for my faith, or else it wouldn’t really be faith.

I have left more than a couple of churches, because of their hardline interpretations, not always because I disagreed with the interpretation or application - but because of how it was presented in a condescending manner (I’m not big on authority of man).

I have considered the alternatives at length.
For me, my choice is clear. I do value logic, but it’s applications in the realm of the divine (in my opinion) are worthless.

I firmly believe in man’s right to live as he sees fit, without oppression, and governed only by his own beliefs.

/sermon lol.

so there you have it, my take on the topic.

my beliefs are usually not looked on favorably in the circles I frequent, even though I don’t try to influence others.
vegans are usually agnostic or Buddhist, and anarchists are almost exclusively atheist.
I don’t really “fit in” with anyone, and I’m fine with that.

156

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Firstly, there are several other gospels, they just were not included by the first council of Nicea in their conglomeration.

Secondly, there is very little chance that The First Epistle of Peter was written by Peter due to references to the Septuagiant translation of the Hebrew bible which Peter would not have had access.

The Second Epistle was very unlikely to have been written by the same person as the first due to the stylistic differences. It could have been written by Peter though that seems unlikely especially given that it references his death.[/quote]

Perhaps, we will never know for sure. The very unlikly part is not true. “Scholars” simply aren’t sure there is evidence in both cases.

Why would I refer to gospels not in the bible?

157

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
thebigbus wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
OK - Historical records outside of Scripture mentioning Christ

Cornelius Tacitus - Governor of Asia
Suetonius - Roman Historian
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of Samosata
The Letter from Mara Bar-Serapion
Julis Africanus
Thallus
Phlegon
Hegesippus

Those are just a few - plus over 5,000 manuscripts of the NT Scriptures alone, many (over 800) within 60 years of Christ’s death.

How many manuscripts of Plato? 7 - the oldest more than 1200 years after his death.

Aristotle? only 5 and none less than 1400 years after his death

Herodotus? - only 8 and all 1300 years after the original

Euripedes? - 9 and all 1300 years after the original.

Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. 8 In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1600’s), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. 9 This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD.

ANYWAY - the point is -there is more evidence that Christ lived than any great historical figure of that era.

Whether or not he was the promised Messiah, the Annointed Christ? - well that is for each individual to decide, but stop wasting time disputing what has been definitively proven already.

Diety or not - he lived. You have to decide what to do with his message and his claims.

That’s why it is called Faith.

Josephus mentions him as well. :wink:

You have totally missed the point (deliberately or accidentally.) None of those writers reference Jesus as a fact. They talk about the beliefs of Christians, which is a totally different thing.

Jesus Christ as one person / deity never existed. There were numerous figures; the stories about them were conglomerated with long standing myths and legends into one story and one person. This is extremely common with the development of religions. If you have a hard time with that then there is no point continuing the discussion because your faith blinds you to logic.

The other famous figures who you mention also most likely were conglomerations of numerous real people who lived.

Your talk of textual reconstruction of the New Testament is farcical. There may be 5,600 documents but most of them are copies of each other. Many of the copies are error strewn. An entire branch of study is dedicated to piecing together the history of which document copies from which document.

There have been plenty of books about this; a good starting place is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman. Don’t worry; Bart is a believer so you don’t need to be scared about the tissue thin fabric of your beliefs being destroyed.

Unequivocally there is not more evidence that Jesus lived than any other major figure from history, to say so is beyond idiotic. It has not been definitively proven. To state that it has is a flat out lie.

That is why religion clings so strongly to faith as a value. The last thing they want you to do is ask questions.

bart ehrman is not a Christian. He is a former fundamentalist Christian, who delights in breaking the faith of his students at UNC.

If you were looking for a believer why not use Ehrman’s mentor who is also noted as one of the best if not the best in textual criticism. Metzger

I was basing the fact that Ehrman is a Christian on the fact that he claims to be a Christian in the book I referenced. If he has changed his mind since then I am not surprised, after all he spends his life reading the Bible.

oh so people that spend thier life reading the Bible all leave the faith? or are you just over reaching with that statement. Why pick a book that favors your view point? Is metzger inferior in your eyes because He was a firm believer?[/quote]

No, not at all. Ehrman at the time which he wrote the book was a beliver. I was not aware that this had changed. I chose that book because I found it intersting yet accessable (I didn’t agree with everything he wrote.)

The point about people who actually read the Bible and the documents that it is built from was a half joking reference to the fact that most of the people that I know who have the deepest levels of faith have the shallowest understanding of the Bible. Yes there are passages that they can quote chapter and verse but that is not the same as contextually reading the books.

158

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Firstly, there are several other gospels, they just were not included by the first council of Nicea in their conglomeration.

Secondly, there is very little chance that The First Epistle of Peter was written by Peter due to references to the Septuagiant translation of the Hebrew bible which Peter would not have had access.

The Second Epistle was very unlikely to have been written by the same person as the first due to the stylistic differences. It could have been written by Peter though that seems unlikely especially given that it references his death.

Perhaps, we will never know for sure. The very unlikly part is not true. “Scholars” simply aren’t sure there is evidence in both cases.

Why would I refer to gospels not in the bible? [/quote]

My question would be, why would you limit yourself to just the gospels chosen by the First Council of Nicea? Even if you reject the other Gospels surely you would want to read them and understand why they were rejected.

159

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
thebigbus wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
OK - Historical records outside of Scripture mentioning Christ

Cornelius Tacitus - Governor of Asia
Suetonius - Roman Historian
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of Samosata
The Letter from Mara Bar-Serapion
Julis Africanus
Thallus
Phlegon
Hegesippus

Those are just a few - plus over 5,000 manuscripts of the NT Scriptures alone, many (over 800) within 60 years of Christ’s death.

How many manuscripts of Plato? 7 - the oldest more than 1200 years after his death.

Aristotle? only 5 and none less than 1400 years after his death

Herodotus? - only 8 and all 1300 years after the original

Euripedes? - 9 and all 1300 years after the original.

Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. 8 In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1600’s), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. 9 This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD.

ANYWAY - the point is -there is more evidence that Christ lived than any great historical figure of that era.

Whether or not he was the promised Messiah, the Annointed Christ? - well that is for each individual to decide, but stop wasting time disputing what has been definitively proven already.

Diety or not - he lived. You have to decide what to do with his message and his claims.

That’s why it is called Faith.

Josephus mentions him as well. :wink:

You have totally missed the point (deliberately or accidentally.) None of those writers reference Jesus as a fact. They talk about the beliefs of Christians, which is a totally different thing.

Jesus Christ as one person / deity never existed. There were numerous figures; the stories about them were conglomerated with long standing myths and legends into one story and one person. This is extremely common with the development of religions. If you have a hard time with that then there is no point continuing the discussion because your faith blinds you to logic.

The other famous figures who you mention also most likely were conglomerations of numerous real people who lived.

Your talk of textual reconstruction of the New Testament is farcical. There may be 5,600 documents but most of them are copies of each other. Many of the copies are error strewn. An entire branch of study is dedicated to piecing together the history of which document copies from which document.

There have been plenty of books about this; a good starting place is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman. Don’t worry; Bart is a believer so you don’t need to be scared about the tissue thin fabric of your beliefs being destroyed.

Unequivocally there is not more evidence that Jesus lived than any other major figure from history, to say so is beyond idiotic. It has not been definitively proven. To state that it has is a flat out lie.

That is why religion clings so strongly to faith as a value. The last thing they want you to do is ask questions.

bart ehrman is not a Christian. He is a former fundamentalist Christian, who delights in breaking the faith of his students at UNC.

If you were looking for a believer why not use Ehrman’s mentor who is also noted as one of the best if not the best in textual criticism. Metzger

I was basing the fact that Ehrman is a Christian on the fact that he claims to be a Christian in the book I referenced. If he has changed his mind since then I am not surprised, after all he spends his life reading the Bible.

oh so people that spend thier life reading the Bible all leave the faith? or are you just over reaching with that statement. Why pick a book that favors your view point? Is metzger inferior in your eyes because He was a firm believer?

No, not at all. Ehrman at the time which he wrote the book was a beliver. I was not aware that this had changed. I chose that book because I found it intersting yet accessable (I didn’t agree with everything he wrote.)

The point about people who actually read the Bible and the documents that it is built from was a half joking reference to the fact that most of the people that I know who have the deepest levels of faith have the shallowest understanding of the Bible. Yes there are passages that they can quote chapter and verse but that is not the same as contextually reading the books.[/quote]

fair enough. I was mostly just looking to stir the pot a little.

I actually have ehrman’s latest book on my “to read list”.
Although from the reviews I have read I am afraid I will be dissapointed.

160

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:

Serious question, how did you come to have your current religion? Did you study a number of religions, look at the pros and cons of each and weigh up the one which seemed most likely or were you inducted into a Christian church as a child and then built your belief system within the framework of what you were being taught by the Church?

Where people get their beliefs from is something which I find fascinating.

For the record, I was christened in the Church of England and attended church every Sunday. As I grew older I was naturally a really inquisitive person so I read like crazy. I moved to more of a deist position before spending a time relating more with Eastern religions (as my study of quantum theory at University lined up with a lot of the Eastern teachings.) Finally, the more I read the more I realized that you didn’t actually need the deity to make the whole thing tick.

Great Question! Love a curious intellect.

I was raised in a Christian home in the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition. I too was a curious individual and read voraciously - I was also constantly challenged by my father to attack my beliefs and to test them for validity continuously. I too studied other faiths, finding many incredible truths in Taosim and Buddhism. (I call myself the first Daoist-buddhist-pagan Baptist in History!) My education has been well-rounded and wide-ranging.

At one point in my life - I willingly abandoned all pre-suppositions and started from scratch in building my belief system. I came to the reasoned scientific conclusion that the universe had a designer and creator (outside of any religious connotation) and called that entity the Creator. From there, I reasoned that if there was a designer - there was an intention or purpose for the design and I needed to know my place within the design. I can go through the whole process, but it was a very lengthy one for me. Every one should undertake this exercise at some point in their life.

The point is, I believe what I believe because I have chosen to and I can find nothing invalid (by rational thought) in what I believe. You would be surprised how often I disagree with other Christians because they willingly perpetuate invalid doctrines and how often I find commonality with various other faiths.

Now - someone mentioned earlier that religious people often resort to dogmatism and insist that their beliefs are true and all others all false - well, there is a vein of validity in this.

There is a path of truth - ultimate over-riding truth. Everyone knows this. There is a true explanation of the universe and human life that contains no errors or falseness in it. Some people believe that they know the truth and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong - well, if they actually did have it all perfectly right - then there would be validity in this claim. They can be evolutionist or creationists, christian or muslim, agnostic or deist. All say they have the truly true!

Reason dictates that they all cannot be right. Statistics says that the probability is many contain some truth, some contain none. BUT, at least one is perfectly right.

That is what I seek in my life - to know ultimate truth and to live by it. Living by any other standard is a lesser path and unenlightened living.

Does that answer your question?
[/quote]

Interesting, thank you. I was really taken with Daoism when I started reading Lau Tzu and Zhuangzi. I would almost call myself a philosophical Daoist (rejecting the religious side.) Lao Tzu is another great example of people trying to group lots of ancient teachings under one person. As I understand it Lao Tzu just means Old Man, so the book is effectively a collection of old stories. People still try to claim that Lao Tzu was a real person though.

I was also taken by the similarity in style between the Daoist texts and the Gospel of Thomas.