Jesus > Religion

RealGunner wrote:both

Senor Penguin wrote:

RealGunner wrote:both

The historical evidence of Jesus' existence only suggests that he existed and much of it comes from the Bible. In other words, there's a probability of his existence but how you weigh this probability is entirely up to you. It is certainly not a fact that he existed nor is it a fact that he was anything but a fictional character derived from the Bible.

To believe that he actually existed AND had supernatural abilities would require a big chunk of faith. Which in this case is an euphemism for delusion.

Given the circumstances, I don't see how it's merely my opinion. It's the conclusion most would take considering the evidence (or lack thereof).

Senor Penguin wrote:Thou dost protest too much, methinks. Have ye a point or nay?

Senor Penguin wrote:Thou dost protest too much, methinks. Have ye a point or nay?

Ordinho10 wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:Thou dost protest too much, methinks. Have ye a point or nay?

Yeah, I went way off topic there.

Basically I agree with the guy, you would have to gone to church your whole life to understand what he is saying. Just switch on the God Channel and you have people asking you for your money, it ain't cool. Jesus doesn't need religion to exist, he was there before the religion even started.

Urggh, if it wasen't for the Catholic Church and its refusal to deal with the child abuse scandals people wouldn't be so against the church like they are,

By god, why can't Muslims, Jews and Christians justget along, we basically worship the same god I mean come on, we all believe in the same Old Testament, yet its what comes after that that seperates us.

Honestly, screw religion, I believe in Jesus not a bunch of old perveted, money hungry men in dresses. Jefferson, I'll join you in your crusade.

You still haven't answered my orignal post though, don't worry i'll wait

Ordinho10 wrote:Mother of God.......

This is why people who haven't been to church their whole lives should never talk it, you know absolutely nothing about it at all. I don't come on here and start talking about evolution because I'm not going to pretend I know anything about it, if people want to believe in it thats up to them not me, but please, do the same thing and don't talk about christianity, because you know absolutely nothing about it, at all.

But, just for the moment, I will humor your ignorance, and reply to your the part of your post Jesus's claim to be the son of god. I'm not going to bother replying to the part about his existence since greater minds then yours or mine, religious and non-religious both say that he existed so i'll move on to my main point.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Ordinho10 wrote:Mother of God.......

This is why people who haven't been to church their whole lives should never talk it, you know absolutely nothing about it at all. I don't come on here and start talking about evolution because I'm not going to pretend I know anything about it, if people want to believe in it thats up to them not me, but please, do the same thing and don't talk about christianity, because you know absolutely nothing about it, at all.

But, just for the moment, I will humor your ignorance, and reply to your the part of your post Jesus's claim to be the son of god. I'm not going to bother replying to the part about his existence since greater minds then yours or mine, religious and non-religious both say that he existed so i'll move on to my main point.

False. There are many scholars who not only doubt Jesus' existence but also flat out deny it. The reasons are simple ... The historical evidence of Jesus' existence stems from the Bible (and "we" all know how reliable the Bible is) so there's no conclusive evidence about his existence. There is little evidence outside the Bible that one could even consider reliable. There is, however, much more evidence to suggest that Jesus was nothing but a mere product of Saint Paul's confused mind.

RealGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:

Ordinho10 wrote:Mother of God.......

This is why people who haven't been to church their whole lives should never talk it, you know absolutely nothing about it at all. I don't come on here and start talking about evolution because I'm not going to pretend I know anything about it, if people want to believe in it thats up to them not me, but please, do the same thing and don't talk about christianity, because you know absolutely nothing about it, at all.

But, just for the moment, I will humor your ignorance, and reply to your the part of your post Jesus's claim to be the son of god. I'm not going to bother replying to the part about his existence since greater minds then yours or mine, religious and non-religious both say that he existed so i'll move on to my main point.

False. There are many scholars who not only doubt Jesus' existence but also flat out deny it. The reasons are simple ... The historical evidence of Jesus' existence stems from the Bible (and "we" all know how reliable the Bible is) so there's no conclusive evidence about his existence. There is little evidence outside the Bible that one could even consider reliable. There is, however, much more evidence to suggest that Jesus was nothing but a mere product of Saint Paul's confused mind.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people


you were saying ?

RealGunner wrote:thats not exactly "little evidence " Not to mention other holy books mention Jesus as well

Senor Penguin wrote:False. There are many scholars who not only doubt Jesus' existence but also flat out deny it. The reasons are simple ... The historical evidence of Jesus' existence stems from the Bible (and "we" all know how reliable the Bible is) so there's no conclusive evidence about his existence. There is little evidence outside the Bible that one could even consider reliable. There is, however, much more evidence to suggest that Jesus was nothing but a mere product of Saint Paul's confused mind.

Furthermore, what is being taught in churches is to be taken with a grain of salt. We have theologians and philosophers at universities who do a far better than job at that than local priests - heck, we may as well go global and find the most appalling nonsense coming from (self professed) divine authority such as the Vatican. If you think you are deserving of authority simply because you've attended churches most of your life you should think again. Likewise, if you believe an appeal to authority makes your claims more valid you should think otherwise. These are poor methods to prove a point. And do not try to diminish my knowledge on the subject, I am fully aware of what I know and do not know.

As for the rest of your post, most of it is plagiarized (from here http://www.existence-of-god.com/resurrection-evidence.html), is full of loopholes and is largely illogical. The premise for the post is the false claim of evidence (based on an appeal to authority) and as such it is invalid, too. If you want to have a debate you should at least keep such sh*tty propaganda out of it.

Good day to you, sir.

What can we say about the history of Jesus? Is it reasonable to conclude that Jesus never existed, based on the weight of all the historical evidence? Or is it more reasonable to conclude that Jesus was an unparalleled historical figure; that not only was he a great teacher and "doer of wonderful works", but that something extraordinary - perhaps even supernatural - happened in history to spark a movement that "turned the world upside down".

Christianity presents a founder who is unmatched in history - one who really lived, taught unlike any other, performed miracles that testified of His authority, really died, and really rose from the dead to be seen by literally hundreds before His ascension.

Either He existed, and was who He claimed to be - Lord and Savior; or not. If He did exist, fulfill prophecy, perform miracles, die in our place, and rise again, then you, I -- we all -- have to deal with the ramifications of this.

Consider the written historical evidence of Jesus from these varied sources ...

1. Non-Christian, non-Jewish sources (principally Roman, Greek). These consist of the writings of a number of Greek or Roman historians, and refer to the history of Jesus because of the trouble the Christian movement was causing in the empire at the time. The records are normally antagonistic, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events.

2. Jewish sources - Josephus, the Talmud. Josephus, a Jewish aristocrat turned politician, was recruited by the Romans during the first Jewish revolt to act as a mediator and write a historical record of events at the time. He records that Jesus was a wise man that did many wonderful works, and that many people - both Jews and Gentiles - followed after him. The Talmud, written by Jewish sources at the time, is (not surprisingly) unfriendly toward the founder of Christianity. The important point, however, is that Jewish sources do not deny that Jesus was a real historical figure -- they only promote a different interpretation of of his conception.

3. Christian sources - the Gospels, early church fathers and historians. The four gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are judged by most scholars to be reliable, historical testimony of eye-witnesses. These gospels, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of Paul and the other Apostles, are judged to have been written from 40 A.D. to 100 A.D. -- all within a few decades of the life of Jesus. The early church fathers were the leaders and teachers in the church who followed the apostles - many were also disciples of these same apostles.

Non-Christian, Non-Jewish Historians Comment on the History of Jesus

Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120)

A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors1, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals covers from 14 A.D. to approximately 68 A.D. (the death of Augustus up to the time of Nero), while Histories proceeds from 68 A.D. (Nero's death) to 96 A.D. (the time of Domitian).

Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)1.

Some points to note about the narrative from Tacitus:

He mistakenly refers to Jesus as "Christus", however this was a common practice among the pagan writers at that time.
He supports the fact that Christ existed, and was put to death by Pontius Pilate - agreeing with the Christian scriptures.
He alludes to "the pernicious superstition" which broke out, was repressed, but then spread even more - even throughout the city of Rome itself. This may indeed be referring to the core belief which caused the early church to explode and "turn the world upside down" -- that Jesus had died indeed, but that He had also risen from the grave.


Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about 52 A.D., wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world (Habernas, VECELJ, 93). Although the original writings of Thallus are lost to us, Julius Africanus, a Christian historian of the late second century (2221 A,D.), was familiar with them and quotes from them. One very interesting passage from Thallus relates to the darkness that enveloped the land at the time of Christ's crucifixion. Julius Africanus writes as follows:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1)

Points to note:

This quote testifies that the gospel accounts of darkness falling upon the land about the time of Christ's death were well known, and thus required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians.
Thallus did not dispute that Jesus has been crucified -- he was more concerned with coming up with another explanation for the darkness that enveloped the land.

How many more references do you need? If you need more, then I would refer to this passage in Luke 9, of Jesus' instructions to His Apostles: "Take nothing for your journey--neither staffs, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece. Into whatever house you enter, stay there, and depart from there. As many as don't receive you, when you depart from that city, shake off even the dust from your feet for a testimony against them."

An important distinction between a myth and a real person is how the figure impacts history. For example, the Olympic Games originated on Mount Olympus in Greece, home of the temple of the Greek god Zeus. But Zeus has not changed governments, laws, or ethics.

The historian Thomas Carlyle said, “No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.” As Carlyle notes, it is real people, not myths, who impact history.

As a real person, Alexander impacted history by his military conquests, altering nations, governments, and laws. But what of Jesus Christ and his impact on our world?

The first-century governments of Israel and Rome were largely untouched by Jesus’ life. The average Roman citizen didn’t know he existed until many years after his death, Roman culture remained largely aloof from his teaching for decades, and it would be several centuries before killing Christians in the coliseum became a national pastime. The rest of the world had little if any knowledge of him. Jesus marshaled no army. He didn’t write a book or change any laws. The Jewish leaders hoped to wipe out his memory, and it appeared they would succeed.

Today, however, ancient Rome lies in ruins. Caesar’s mighty legions and the pomp of Roman imperial power have faded into oblivion. Yet how is Jesus remembered today? What is his enduring influence?
• More books have been written about Jesus than about any other person in history.
• Nations have used his words as the bedrock of their governments. According to Durant, “The triumph of Christ was the beginning of democracy.”
• His Sermon on the Mount established a new paradigm in ethics and morals.
• Schools, hospitals, and humanitarian works have been founded in his name. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Oxford are but a few universities that have Christians to thank for their beginning.
• The elevated role of women in Western culture traces its roots back to Jesus. (Women in Jesus’ day were considered inferior and virtual nonpersons until his teaching was followed.)
• Slavery was abolished in Britain and America due to Jesus’ teaching that each human life is valuable.
• Former drug and alcohol dependents, prostitutes, and others seeking purpose in life claim him as the explanation for their changed lives.
• Two billion people call themselves Christians. While some are Christian in name only, others continue to impact our culture by teaching Jesus’ principles that all life is valuable and we are to love one another.
Remarkably, Jesus made all of this impact as a result of just a three-year period of public ministry. If Jesus didn’t exist, one must wonder how a myth could so alter history. When world historian H. G. Wells was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, he replied, “By this test Jesus stands first.”

Documentary evidence and historical impact point to the fact that Jesus did exist. If Jesus did really exist, we also would expect to discover his footprints imprinted within the details of history. Myths don’t leave such confirming details.

And as to the existence of Yeshuah - there is more than enough proof even if second hand - Saul of Tarsus(Paul of the NT) most definitely existed and wrote his own documentation of his faith and the early church - this is widely accepted by both secular and nonsecular authorities - as to the story itself (that is - Christ crucified dead, buried and rose from the dead) One has to ask why a man like Paul - an educated Roman citizen, a Pharisee, and leading persecutor of Christ's followers would give up his position, wealth, and reputation to follow a myth to the death....
This fact alone is a testament to the power of Yeshuah's life and teaching....

I would also ask the same question of those other apostles who literally gave their lives to spread the gospel message...

Have you ever joined an organization that required an oath of allegiance to the death? and if so are you still engaged, still a member? Or was it a youthful pipe dream that pooped out once you had a bit of wisdom and age under your belt? Yeshuah's teaching has endured past all understanding...Is this simply because of the power and wealth of the "church" or is there something in all of this that transcends the machinations of "scholars", "priests", and politics....I say the latter....

the men that followed Christ had lives, families, occupations, yet they threw in with a man with an outlandish story...or was it?

Paul himself speaks of the resurrection to a group of people of whom he says - "some of you are still alive who remember and were witnesses"... I am 58 years old yet I can tell you where I was, the color of the sky, the room, the time, and who I spent the day with on the day that JFK was shot as if it were yesterday....it 2008 now and he was shot in 1963 - so let me give you a second hand report and then call me a liar...please.....

and for the record Nero was emperor and blaming Christians for his own madness in the first century - it wasn't centuries before christians were persecuted - it followed them from the very beginning...with a few years of respite here and there...until Constantine...

Yeshuah Himself said it best - they hate you because they hated Me first..and guess what? His words still ring true...

Gerd Lüdemann (Skeptical Scholar) said this:
"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."
Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

J. P. Moreland (Philosopher, Theologian & Distinguished Professor)
“Almost no New Testament scholar today denies that Jesus appeared to a number of his followers after his death. Some scholars interpret these as subjective hallucinations or objective visions granted by God which were not visions of a physical being. But no one denies that the believers had some sort of experience.“
J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1987), pp. 171,172.)

Norman Perrin (Skeptical New Testament Scholar) admitted: “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.”
Norman Perrin, The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 80

James D. G. Dunn (Professor of Divinity) at the University of Durham.
“It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians, who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the dead.”
Dunn, James D.G., The Evidence For Jesus (Westminster John Knox Press) pg. 75

Bart Ehrman (Skeptical Scholar)
in his book states:
"Historians … have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution."
Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, (published by Oxford University Press in 1999)

Clifford Herschel Moore (Scholar & Professor)
He remarked of Jesus’ historicity, “Christianity knew its Saviour and Redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith. … Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself on the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts.”
(American Latin scholar (1866-1931) and professor at Harvard University)

Michael Grant, (Atheist British Historian)
In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed. “This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”
Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels [[1977], pages 199, 200)

Howard Marshall (New Testament Professor)
There is said to be a Russian encyclopedia in current use which affirms in a brief entry that Jesus Christ was the mythological founder of Christianity, but it is virtually alone in doing so. The historian will not take its statement very seriously, since ... it offers no evidence for its assertion, and mere assertion cannot stand over against historical enquiry
I Believe in the Historical Jesus [Published by Regent College Publishing 1977] pg. 15

Will Durant (Secular Historian)
Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.
Durant, Will [Caesar and Christ. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1944, Chaper XXVI)

Rudolf Bultmann (New Testament Scholar)
“Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.”
Jesus and the Word, [New York: Scribner,] 1958, p. introduction

Rudolf Bultmann (New Testament Scholar)
“Most of the miracle stories contained in the gospels are legendary or at least are dressed up with legends. But there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries; understanding, miracles, that is, deeds that were the result of supernatural, divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons.
Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926), p. 159.

Robert Van Voorst [Professor of New Testament Studies]:
"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."
(Jesus Outside the New Testament [2000], pages 6, 14, 16)

Graham Stanton (Professor of New Testament Studies)
Professor Stanton occupies the chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University and led the attack on Carston Theide's re-dating of the Jesus Papyrus. He considers the Jesus Myth crowd even more extreme as he writes in The Gospels and Jesus.
“Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.”
Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii

N.T. Wright (New Testament Scholar):
"It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much good evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world....the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period....that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus [aside from one or two]....It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest."
("The Self-Revelation of God in Human History" from There Is A God by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese [2007])

D. H. Van Daalen [New Testament Scholar]
It is extremely difficult to object to the fact of the empty tomb on historical grounds; most objectors do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.
D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection (London: Collins, 1972)

Jacob Kremer, (New Testament Scholar) states:
By far, most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb.
Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien-Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuggart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 49-50.

William Lane Craig (A leading Scholar on the resurrection and apologist reports):
There is a widespread consensus among New Testament critics that the disciples did see "appearances of Jesus" after his death, and a considerable number interpret these appearances in terms of the bodily resurrection and appearances of Jesus.
Wilkins, Michael and Moreland, J. P. Jesus Under Fire. p. 156.

Dr. Pinchas Lapide (Jewish Scholar) said: “When this frightened band of apostles suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society… Then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation.”
“I accept the resurrection of Easter Sunday not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as an historical event.”
Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Fortress Press, 1988), p. 125.

Luke Timothy Johnson, (New Testament Scholar)
Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.

Luke Timothy Johnson (New Testament Scholar),
"The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion."
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 125.

Colin J. Hemer (Classical Scholar)
Was the author of the book of Acts reliable in getting the facts straight?
Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. “Again and again Luke's accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right.”
Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), chap. 8.

Craig Evans, (New Testament Scholar), says that "the older notion" that the miracle stories were the product of mythological divine man ideas "has been largely abandoned.”
He says, "It is no longer seriously contested that miracles played a role in Jesus ministry."
Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993): 18, 34.

John A. T. Robinson [New Testament Scholar]
The honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best attested facts about Jesus."
John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), p. 131.

C. F. D. Moule (New Testament Scholar)
“that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account for--apart from the resurrection itself.”
C. F. D. Moule and Don Cupitt, "The Resurrection: a Disagreement," Theology 75 (1972): 507-19.

Geza Vermes – (Jewish British scholar)
"When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that . . . the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb"
(Jesus the Jew, p. 41).

Dr. Gary Habermas (Historian) did a survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975. Habermas found that 75% of the scholars surveyed accepted the historicity of the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb. Belief in the disciples' experiencing post-mortem appearances of Jesus is virtually universal.
Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection," Dialog 45 (2006): 292).

Hans Grass (New Testament Scholar) admits that the conversion of James is one of the surest proofs of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 4th ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 80.

Thomas Arnold, (former Professor of History at Rugby and Oxford, and one of the world’s greatest historians), made the following statement about the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
“I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died, and rose again from the dead.”
Thomas Arnold, Sermons on Christian Life (London, 1854), p. 324.

Simon Greenleaf (Professer) is one of the most highly regarded legal minds ever seen in America. He was an expert on the laws of evidence, and the founder of the Harvard Law School. He analyzed the accounts in the Four Gospels of the resurrection of Christ in terms of their validity as objective testimonial evidence, and concluded:
“It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.”
Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists (New York: 1874), p. 28.

Dr. Henry Morris writes:
“One thing is certain: the disciples could not have fabricated the story of the resurrection from their own imaginations. On the contrary, they somehow failed to anticipate it even after such an abundance of prophetic preparation for it, both from the Scriptures and from Christ. It took the strongest of evidences to convince them it had actually taken place.”
Henry Morris, op. cit., p. 1574.

Dr. Henry H. Halley
“What a hale of glory this simple belief sheds on human life. Our hope of resurrection and life everlasting is based, not on a philosophic guess about immortality, but an historic fact.”
From Halley’s Bible Handbook, 1955 edition, p.497.

Ordinho10 wrote:Why do you keep on going on about priests and the Vatican as if they speak for all Christians? They are representative of a proportion of the faith yes but you talk of them as if they represent all of us. No one is claiming to be a divine voice in here, except for maybe you but thats for another topic.

Also, stop going on about this rubbish that many scholars deny Jesus' existence, it is not true, name me one well respected historian who does? I can name you more than one who does believe Jesus existed. Bart Ehrman, a liberal scholar, who is not a Christian in the any way, but an extremely well respected historian who believes that Jesus existed. In fact, there's a youtube audio clip where he absolutely owns some athiest talk show host on this very subject, video below.

There is not only him by the way, a close friend of mine wrote this 3 years ago, and it is very releveant to the topic.

This is a quote from a website known as abovetopsecret, the poster, who was 58 at the time he wrote it but would be about 60 now makes some extremly vlaid points. He may not be a history student but I am and I can assure you that all he says is true, but I guess I might as well give you the names of respected scholars who share a similar opinion, so not to give you an ground away.

Below is another quote from abovetopsecret(I really do love this place), and names every single major historian/scholar, believers and non believers, theologians and philosophers who all support the belief in the historical Jesus, who you fooolishly claim never existed.

VivaStPauli wrote:BTW what really annoys me is treating "atheism" like some kind of homogenic faith conglomerate, where owning one retard who happens to be an atheist somehow disproves the entire concept of "critical thinking". That interviewer was an idiot, and the one owning him was an agnostic, which still makes him not a theist - so why even bring it up?

Senor Penguin wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:BTW what really annoys me is treating "atheism" like some kind of homogenic faith conglomerate, where owning one retard who happens to be an atheist somehow disproves the entire concept of "critical thinking". That interviewer was an idiot, and the one owning him was an agnostic, which still makes him not a theist - so why even bring it up?

Was the interviewer really owned? All I see is Bart Ehrman making a lot of non sequiturs by comparing the historicity of Jesus with other (actual) historical figures.

There is much better and more reliable evidence to suggest that the mentioned figures actually existed. Not only posthumous evidence (as it is in Jesus' case) but evidence dating to the time they actually lived. And not only evidence stemming from scripture that is extremely inconsistent. The sheer amount of evidence and the quality of such just doesn't compare.

I have to reiterate that the oldest account we have on Jesus came from St. Paul and that was also posthumous, approximately 50 years after Jesus presumably died. To compare this with the reliable evidence we have on the Holocaust, Caesar and Lincoln is absolutely disgraceful!

Senor Penguin wrote:

Ordinho10 wrote:Why do you keep on going on about priests and the Vatican as if they speak for all Christians? They are representative of a proportion of the faith yes but you talk of them as if they represent all of us. No one is claiming to be a divine voice in here, except for maybe you but thats for another topic.

It goes without saying that no one can speak for everyone. I didn't claim that anyone professed to be a divine voice here either. I merely said that you shouldn't profess to be an authority or expect that an appeal to authority is something that would work.

From this sentence you appear to proclaim authority: "This is why people who haven't been to church their whole lives should never talk it, you know absolutely nothing about it at all. "

Also, stop going on about this rubbish that many scholars deny Jesus' existence, it is not true, name me one well respected historian who does? I can name you more than one who does believe Jesus existed. Bart Ehrman, a liberal scholar, who is not a Christian in the any way, but an extremely well respected historian who believes that Jesus existed. In fact, there's a youtube audio clip where he absolutely owns some athiest talk show host on this very subject, video below.

Did you even listen to what he had to say?

"[On Jesus] And for him to say and do anything, he had to exist."
"What hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed?"
"Then why not just deny the holocaust? Or why not deny that Abraham Lincoln lived?"
"[On Jesus as a real person, asked by the interviewer] But I guess you would say, 'look we can look at the earliest manuscripts that date to around when he should have existed or something'? What do we have, 'cause we don't have anything that exists until he died, allegedly, right?" - "[Response] About him? Jesus? Well that's true of everyone."

I won't accept such ridiculous logic from anyone.

There is not only him by the way, a close friend of mine wrote this 3 years ago, and it is very releveant to the topic.

Again I have to question whether you actually read what you post?

The historians your presumed friend refers to gave their accounts on Jesus decades after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Some of them were even born a few years after this supposed crucifixion took place. Not to mention that some of these accounts were arguably forged and are thus considered invalid by some.

The fact is that the oldest account we have on Jesus comes from St. Paul. This account came around 20-50 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion as well and St. Paul never even met Jesus in the flesh. Jesus "appeared to him" after the crucifixion.

The criterion for evidence is embarrassing when it comes to the historicity of Jesus.

This is a quote from a website known as abovetopsecret, the poster, who was 58 at the time he wrote it but would be about 60 now makes some extremly vlaid points. He may not be a history student but I am and I can assure you that all he says is true, but I guess I might as well give you the names of respected scholars who share a similar opinion, so not to give you an ground away.

You speak of him as if he isn't a friend of yours? And now you're a "history student"? Alright. Another appeal to authority.

Below is another quote from abovetopsecret(I really do love this place), and names every single major historian/scholar, believers and non believers, theologians and philosophers who all support the belief in the historical Jesus, who you fooolishly claim never existed.

Abovetopsecret? A site that promotes insane conspiracy theories? Good grief.

Looking aside of that, did you - once again - actually read what you copied & pasted?

Senor Penguin wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:BTW what really annoys me is treating "atheism" like some kind of homogenic faith conglomerate, where owning one retard who happens to be an atheist somehow disproves the entire concept of "critical thinking". That interviewer was an idiot, and the one owning him was an agnostic, which still makes him not a theist - so why even bring it up?

Was the interviewer really owned? All I see is Bart Ehrman making a lot of non sequiturs by comparing the historicity of Jesus with other (actual) historical figures.

There is much better and more reliable evidence to suggest that the mentioned figures actually existed. Not only posthumous evidence (as it is in Jesus' case) but evidence dating to the time they actually lived. And not only evidence stemming from scripture that is extremely inconsistent. The sheer amount of evidence and the quality of such just doesn't compare.

I have to reiterate that the oldest account we have on Jesus came from St. Paul and that was also posthumous, approximately 50 years after Jesus presumably died. To compare this with the reliable evidence we have on the Holocaust, Caesar and Lincoln is absolutely disgraceful!

VivaStPauli wrote:Why are we discussing the historical Jesus? Or rather: his existence?
It's utterly irrelevant.

If Jesus did in fact not exist, someone made up his teachings and wrote them down, making that person who invented Jesus basically the equivalent to Jesus as a philosopher, once you take out all that magic voodoo nonsense.

And Jesus' teachings are philosophically quite interesting, albeit pretty obsolete now that we've had Kant, who put the ground rules of morality down in a much more clear, less ambivalent way.

BTW what really annoys me is treating "atheism" like some kind of homogenic faith conglomerate, where owning one retard who happens to be an atheist somehow disproves the entire concept of "critical thinking". That interviewer was an idiot, and the one owning him was an agnostic, which still makes him not a theist - so why even bring it up?

But I digress, also digest, but that's beside the point, it just has to be said that steak is delicious. Thanks go.... ...Evolution for that.


So in conclusion: Religion is self perpetuating, people believe in it because they're brought up to believe in it and are taught that believing in it is a virtue of it's own, which makes them feel bad about not believing, so even if they abandon a certain church and/or religion they'll probably cling to their imposed view that they have to soothe their concience by believing in something, and end up with some stupid hippie mumbo-jumbo of patchwork religion, lighting a couple candles for buddha before thanking the sun spirits, or whatever.

People would be better adviced spending their time reading an actual book on natural science, or history. At least then, you could learn something of permanent value.

Oh, and because I want all of this to sound smarter:

Ordinho10 wrote:By god, you know what, your not worth the time arguing with. If God himself showed up in front of you I bet you would still doubt his existence.

All we can do is wait and see who is right, I don't know about you, but i'm feeling pretty confident.

It doesn't matter what the background of the website is, with that logic, anything that is said in this forum can be taken with a pinch of salt due to the large amount of immature posters in it. The fact still remains, those are the names of respected Historians/theologians/scholars who can back up my viewpoint, i'm still waiting for yours.

There's no first hand evidence for the existence of Alexander, and yet, you don't doubt his existence.

There's no first hand evidence for the existence of Plato and Socrates, and yet, you do not doubt thier existence.

In fact, Paul was around during the life of Jesus, he probably just never wrote it all down until later on in his life(most likely when he was a prisoner in Rome and about to be beheaded). It doesn;t take much logic to figure this out does it?

Also, people would take Ehrman view over yours anyday. You are preaching to the wind, because in Ehrman's words, no serious historian would even entertain a debate with you.

free_cat wrote:While most of Jesus preachings were a great improvement from the old testament, he also said some apalling things like (according to the bible, which may be or may not be what Jesus actually said):

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
Don't believe in Jesus? Just burn.


"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Wanna go to heaven? Cut your balls.

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."
So all terrible things from Old Testament still stand according to Jesus.

Clarke's Commentary on John 15:6
If a man abide not in me - Our Lord in the plainest manner intimates that a person may as truly be united to him as the branch is to the tree that produces it, and yet be afterwards cut off and cast into the fire; because he has not brought forth fruit to the glory of his God. No man can cut off a branch from a tree to which that branch was never united: it is absurd, and contrary to the letter and spirit of the metaphor, to talk of being seemingly in Christ - because this means nothing. If there was only a seeming union, there could be only a seeming excision: so the matter is just where it began; nothing is done on either side, and nothing said to any purpose.

He is cast forth - Observe, that person who abides not in Christ, in a believing loving, obedient spirit, is -

1. Cut off from Jesus, having no longer any right or title to him or to his salvation.

2. He is withered - deprived of all the influences of God's grace and Spirit; loses all his heavenly unction; becomes indifferent, cold, and dead to every holy and spiritual word and work.

3. He is gathered - becomes (through the judgment of God) again united with backsliders like himself and other workers of iniquity; and, being abandoned to his own heart and Satan, he is,

4. Cast into the fire - separated from God's people, from God himself, and from the glory of his power. And,

5. He is burned - is eternally tormented with the devil and his angels, and with all those who have lived and died in their iniquity.

Eunuchs - Ευνουχος, from ευνην εχειν, to have the care of the bed or bedchamber; this being the principal employment of eunuchs in the eastern countries, particularly in the apartments of queens and princesses. These are they whom our Lord says are made eunuchs by men, merely for the above purpose.

So born from their mother's womb - Such as are naturally incapable of marriage, and consequently should not contract any.

For the kingdom of heaven's sake - I believe our Lord here alludes to the case of the Essenes, one of the most holy and pure sects among the Jews. These abstained from all commerce with women, hoping thereby to acquire a greater degree of purity, and be better fitted for the kingdom of God: children they had none of their own, but constantly adopted those of poor people, and brought them up in their own way. Philo, Josephus, and Pliny have largely described this very singular sect; and Dean Prideaux, with his usual fidelity and perspicuity, has given the substance of what each has said. Connex. vol. iii. p. 483, etc.; edit. 1725. The account is very interesting, and well worthy the attention of every Christian. Among the rabbins we find these different kinds of eunuchs, not only mentioned, but circumstantially described, סריס חמה saris chama, eunuchs of the sun, i.e. eunuchs by the hand of God; men born impotent. סריס אדם saris Adam, eunuchs of men, those who were castrated. And they add a third sort; those who make themselves eunuchs, abstain from marriage, etc., that they may give themselves Up to the study of the Divine law. See many examples in Schoettgen.

He that is able to receive - Χωρειν χωρειτω. These words are variously translated: he who can take; let him take it; comprehend, let him comprehend it: admit, let him admit it. The meaning seems to be, Let the man who feels himself capable of embracing this way of life, embrace it; but none can do it but he to whom it is given, who has it as a gift from his mother's womb.

The great Origen, understanding the latter clause of this verse (which I have applied to the Essenes) literally - O human weakness! - went, and literally fulfilled it on himself!

Verily - Truly, certainly. A word of strong affirmation.

Till heaven and earth pass - This expression denotes that the law never would be destroyed until it should be all fulfilled. It is the same as saying everything else may change; the very earth and heaven may pass away, but the law of God shall not be destroyed until its whole design has been accomplished.

One jot - The word "jot," or yod (י y), is the name of the Hebrew letter I, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.

One tittle - The word used here, in the Greek, means literally a little horn, then a point, an extremity. Several of the Hebrew letters were written with small points or apices, as in the Hebrew letter, shin (שׁ sh), or the Hebrew letter, sin (שׂ s), which serve to distinguish one letter from another. To change a small point of one letter, therefore, might vary the meaning of a word, and destroy the sense. The name "little horn" was given to these points probably from the manner in which they were written, resembling a little horn. Professor Hackett says of a manuscript which he saw a Jew transcribing: "One peculiarity, that struck me at once as I cast my eye over the parchment, was the horn-like appearance attached to some of the letters. I had seen the same mark, before this, in Hebrew manuscripts, but never where it was so prominent as here. The sign in question, as connected with the Hebrew Letter Lamedh (ל L) in particular, had almost the appearance of an intentional imitation of a ram's head. It was to that appendage of the Hebrew letters that the Saviour referred when he said, "'Not one jot or little horn' (as the Greek term signifies, which our version renders 'tittle,') 'shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled.'" - Illustrations of Scripture, p. 234. Hence, the Jews were exceedingly cautious in writing these letters, and considered the smallest change or omission a reason for destroying the whole manuscript when they were transcribing the Old Testament. The expression, "one jot or tittle," became proverbial, and means that the smallest part of the law should not be destroyed.

The laws of the Jews are commonly divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral laws are such as grow out of the nature of things, and which cannot, therefore, be changed - such as the duty of loving God and his creatures. These cannot be abolished, as it can never be made right to hate God, or to hate our fellow-men. Of this kind are the ten commandments, and these our Saviour has neither abolished nor superseded. The ceremonial laws are such as are appointed to meet certain states of society, or to regulate the religious rites and ceremonies of a people. These can be changed when circumstances are changed, and yet the moral law be untouched. A general in an army may command his soldiers to appear sometimes in a red coat and sometimes in blue or in yellow. This would be a ceremonial law, and might be changed as he pleased. The duty of obeying him, and of being faithful to his country, could not be changed.

This is a moral law. A parent might permit his children to have 50 different dresses at different times, and love them equally in all. The dress is a mere matter of ceremony, and may be changed. The child, in all these garments, is bound to love and obey his father. This is a moral law, and cannot be changed. So the laws of the Jews. Those designed to regulate mere matters of ceremony and rites of worship might be changed. Those requiring love and obedience to God and love to people could not be changed, and Christ did not attempt it, Matthew 19:19; Matthew 22:37-39; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9. A third species of law was the judicial, or those laws regulating courts of justice which are contained in the Old Testament. These were of the nature of the ceremonial law, and might also be changed at pleasure. The judicial law of the Hebrews was adapted to their own civil society. When the form of their polity was changed this was of course no longer binding. The ceremonial law was fulfilled by the coming of Christ: the shadow was lost in the substance, and ceased to be binding. The moral law was confirmed and unchanged.