Which makes more sense?

Incorrect. There is historical proof of Jesus' existence outside of the Bible. Check out Josephus.

 

Most scholars that I've read consider this to be genuine:


"And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought them a man called James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this. They therefore secretly sent to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not even been correct in his first step, to order him to desist from further actions. Certain of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent."
--Jewish Antiquities by Josephus

 

To NayKidApe: Exactly. I agree with you. There is historical proof of Jesus of Nazareth's existence.

(I said incorrect to the fella who said there was no historical proof.)

 

Oops...were you disagreeing with me? Aren't I defensive!

Boy I'm acting fiesty

 

I was showing one of the Josesphus quotes. there's another one but there's so much contraversity over it's validity that I'm not even sure it's worth showing.


there's also Tacitus (born 55 CE):

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Remember all testomony is only evidence, not proof. It doesn't prove anything conclusively (there are theories all over the place for and against accepting either one of these examples) but it helps people form their own conclusions.

 

Yep, PURE, 100%, GRADE A BOOOLSHEEOT!

 

The Josephus quote has long been proven an interpolation by the "Church". In other words...a forgery (and not a very good one at that).

 

Libertine, I think you need to look up the definition of the word "forgery."

Interpreting a document does not create a forged document.

It produces... an interpretation.

 

Excuse me, sweetheart, but...please don't insult my intelligence. It doesn't bid well for your maturity.

It was an: INTERPOLATION-To change or falsify (a text) by introducing new or incorrect material.

It was not "interpreted" at all.

 

Sorry honey. I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence.

All I was trying to say is this: faith is not a topic that can be proved. However, for those people who go out claiming that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, it simply isn't true. Because of documents like this, there is some historical proof.

 

There is NO historical evidence outside the Bible or books interpolated by the Church and other propagandists. History has proven that the Church banned, burned or manipulated ancient texts. This Josephus interpolation is a fraud. If you can produce one shred of objective historical evidence for this "Jesus Christ" (as noted in the Bible) I, for one, would receive it.

However, after 11 years in the Christian apologetics/historical field and growing up in 3 decades of devout Christianity and "defending the faith" I finally examined the evidence outside my box...and then my transformation from believer to realist became clear.

Faith is NOT a topic that can be proven, you are correct. But, there are two kinds of faith: Reasonable faith and blind faith-- Christianity is built on blind faith which flies in the face of reason in every philosophical and scientific way possible.

 

I won't get into this argument I've had a million times before: I've already heard about the big bad Church with a capital "C" and the rants on organized religion, and the Crusades, etc. Just know: I didn't grow up in any "religion" and was not raised to believe or not believe in God.

I cannot prove my faith to you. I contest with your statement that all Christians have blind faith. My faith is reasonable, but I suppose it is impossible to show this through my words on the hipforums or even in the best paper I've written on the subject. I guess the only way to truly talk about my faith is to share it with someone through my actions and words in my daily life. Not grabbing every helpless civilian wandering by to give them some silly tract and asking them if they've found Jesus yet, but simply: being...and then telling the story if they ask.

-M

 

LOL... Listen, I respect your right to choose, obviously.

I don't believe it for several reasons I could choose to get into, but that all depends on whether or not you want to spend at least a month of your time in email sessions with me.

I hardly think you would considering you are probably not desiring to change and I am sure that I would not.

But, it is nice to discuss it.

If I came across as a royal asshole....I do apologize.

 

Awesome. I respect your decisions wholeheartedly as well. ...and am thoroughly enjoying our discussions.

Here's hoping we continue to disagree on core topics just kiddin

 

Well, I'll be happy to disagree with you anytime if that means you get to continue our conversations....lol

 

Not the one I quoted.

I know the one you're talking about and, like I said, I didn't include it because it is considerred to be mostly interpolation.

 

neither

 

This "evidence" is not evidence at all of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. It merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius.

If Tacitus found this information in Roman records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation.

But, the historians say that it was more likely that Tacitus was going on another form of information -- ORAL information given to him by another contemporary.

For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator).

Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name.

So can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity. And again this is not contemporary evidence at all.

As I learned in the Academy (Christian) I attended for four years, the only historians which use this as evidence are the Christian apologists.

 

I know that (for that matter there are scholars who believe the whole Neroian persecution was an invention of the Catholic church) but if, as you said, this quote confirms that there were christians at that time ("a great multitude" according to the author) that all by itself makes christianity an anomolie;
There were quite a few pretenders to the title of Messiah durining the Roman occupation. Some of them were contemporaries of Jesus, they all had followings but--their follows dispersered and their religions died soon after each was arrested of killed.

Christianity, on the other hand, exploded after the crucifixtion is supposed to have happened and within less than a generation had churches on three continents.

Ruling out a complete fabrication by the church of all the historical documentation regarding christians and christianity prior to the council of
Niccene this fact all by itself makes christianity entitled to a fair trial.

 

Christianity would have died as well had it not been for Paul of Tarsus and Constantine (mainly Constantine).

Regarding Paul, the Essenes and Gnostics tell a much more revealing tale of "Jesus Christ" and Christianity. Paul's creation is well-documented in his biographical role written by Hyam Maccoby. As well as the Christian myths pickled up by the "Church" through the various pagan customs and festivals (historical fact). Also, keep in mind the original manuscripts of the GOOD BOOK have never been produced, not even for a museum. Because, they cannot be found...hmmmm....

Many dates cannot be verified (Jesus' birth for instance) and some contradict historical documentation-- the census around the specified "birthdate" given by the Church and the supposed annihilation of male children by Herod. Hmmmm............

The Jesus Gospel story seems to SIGNIFICANTLY resemble earlier myths of "god men" who came to earth and lived and died in the same manner. Such as Horus (earlier than Yeshua) who was born of virgin, baptised, had 12 followers, performed miracles, raised El-Azar-Us (Lazarus??) from the dead, was called The Way, The Anointed One, and was killed and resurrected.
Osiris, and Mithra all had the same elemental story. The Egyptian myths being much older than Christianity.

And as Egyptians were fond of sun-worship these myths were made as representations of the Sun and its movements.