94 replies to this topic

[Alienated Being]

Ben Masada, on 06 October 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

1. His Jewish knowledge of Jewish culture.
2. Thousands of books that have been written about him.
3. Josephus does not mention him in his writings.
4. Pilate, later, in retirement, asked about Jesus of Nazareth, was wondering: "Jesus... Jesus of Nazareth... No, I can't remember him."  This is from "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (page 23) by the scholar John McManners.
5. That's all. I think you are right: He did not exist.

Ben

All you have provided for his existence is literary references. I am sorry, but that does not constitute as irrefutable evidence for somebody's existence.

[Dying Seraph]

Ben Masada, on 06 October 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

1. His Jewish knowledge of Jewish culture.
2. Thousands of books that have been written about him.
3. Josephus does not mention him in his writings.
4. Pilate, later, in retirement, asked about Jesus of Nazareth, was wondering: "Jesus... Jesus of Nazareth... No, I can't remember him."  This is from "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (page 23) by the scholar John McManners.
5. That's all. I think you are right: He did not exist.

Ben

I
Are you certain on number 3? It was my understanding that Josephus did indeed mention Jesus, however as a notorious trouble maker.

SINcerely,

[Dying Seraph]

markdohle, on 06 October 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

These books were chosen because they represented what was believed by early Christians, they were put together to stop confusion. The church had the right to do so. 60 AD is only 30 years after Jesus death or perhaps a few years before the 30 year mark..  So many people were still alive who witnessed many things presented in the Gospels.  Paul talks about the 500 witnesses, may of which were still alive.  People would check out such things.  No Jesus rose, people experienced his risen state and preached it, died for it.

Peace
Mark

Greetings Mark,
I must express a genuine concern. Where does the term "gnostic" come from? Where does "heretic" come from? DO you think gnostics or heretics saw themselves as such or as christians? I strongly suspect the latter and that these terms (gnostic, heretic) were relagated to them by Ireneus and others who won the fight to demean these other "gospels" as inferior. Acts of the Apostles conveys that the church from it's foundations were solid and organized. The fact that so many Christians disagreed and created their own texts to convey their own concerns shows otherwise the church was ANYTHING BUT organized. If even at the time of Christ and shortly after there appears to be no organization no common concensus...who's to say with confidence that the majority of Christians accepted Christs death and resurrection when many even then were struggling to understand such and how a messiah could be put to death in such a lowly,unsavory fashion?

SINcerely,

[Ben Masada]

markdohle, on 06 October 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

Well the Gospels were written because of the Resurrection, it was proclaimed as is shown in the book of acts.  Good luck with your studies my friend.

peace
mark

Yes, but the gospels were written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Paul wrote his letters about 10 to 30 years prior to the gospels. The gospels were, so to speak, a paraphrasing of the gospel of Paul, as the writers were his former disciples.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

markdohle, on 06 October 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

These books were chosen because they represented what was believed by early Christians, they were put together to stop confusion. The church had the right to do so. 60 AD is only 30 years after Jesus death or perhaps a few years before the 30 year mark..  So many people were still alive who witnessed many things presented in the Gospels.  Paul talks about the 500 witnesses, may of which were still alive.  People would check out such things.  No Jesus rose, people experienced his risen state and preached it, died for it.

Peace
Mark

Well, if I am to take your word for it, Jesus was not a Jewish man. I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to come half-way down and agree with me that Jesus was Greek. Ready to compromise? There is no bodily resurrection in Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Alienated Being, on 06 October 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

All you have provided for his existence is literary references. I am sorry, but that does not constitute as irrefutable evidence for somebody's existence.

What does, if we are talking about someone who lived or not 2,000 years ago?

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Dying Seraph, on 07 October 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

I
Are you certain on number 3? It was my understanding that Josephus did indeed mention Jesus, however as a notorious trouble maker.

SINcerely,

Never! What has come about from Josephus on Jesus, happened as a result of pious forgery fabricated by the Fathers of the Church in the 4th Century, with the intent to document Jesus' historicity from outside the NT. Since Josephus was a historian of the time, he fittest best for being Jewish; but prior to Constantine in 312 ACE, there was nothing in Josephus about Jesus.

Ben

[markdohle]

Ben Masada, on 13 October 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Well, if I am to take your word for it, Jesus was not a Jewish man. I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to come half-way down and agree with me that Jesus was Greek. Ready to compromise? There is no bodily resurrection in Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus.

Ben

The Christian faith sprung up right after the Resurrection.  That was because many wittnessed Jesus after he rose.  Paul talks about the 500, many of which were still alive at his writing. So they could be checked out.    He wrote his letters before the Gospels, well as far as we know.  The Jews did not believe that one man would rise from the dead, nor were they stupid, but intelligent and educated people.  People will die for what they believe, they will die for a known lie.  Many so called leaders came and were killed like Jesus, and the movments ended.  Why not this one.  It was because Jesus did rise from the dead.  Myths take years to start, they don't come into full bloom during the life of those who expereiced what Jesus did, his miracles and yes his resurrection.  Many of the first Christians were members of very Parties that killed him, because of the experience of the risen Lord, many Jewish religious leaders became his followers....Paul being one of them.

Peace
mark

[markdohle]

Ben Masada, on 13 October 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

What does, if we are talking about someone who lived or not 2,000 years ago?

Ben

Ben Masada, on 13 October 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Well, if I am to take your word for it, Jesus was not a Jewish man. I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to come half-way down and agree with me that Jesus was Greek. Ready to compromise? There is no bodily resurrection in Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus.

Ben

The greeks did not believe in any kind of resurrection.

Peace
mark

[spartan max2]

everyone should become agnostic   . We will never know the truth until we die. But guess what we all will die! The great experiment all we have to do is wait. Time will tell. So just be happy

Edit: i know this is kinda off  topic, i just felt like i should say it

Edited by spartan max2, 20 November 2012 - 01:21 AM.

[Ben Masada]

markdohle, on 03 October 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

When  the Romans crucified someone they were not taken down until they were dead.  Legs were broken, or in Jesus case he was pierced by a spear.  In any case, after being scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed through the wrist and feet on the cross, I doubt even if he lived he would be able to appear before the apostles, or even walk or use his hands.  He rose from the dead, that is the whole point of the New Testament, a document that tells us of the early experiences with the risen Lord.  

Peace
Mark

The Romans did not apply more than one method to crucify a renegade. Unless you think that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans, the method was the same. According to Josephus, only in the First Century, thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans. And for all of them, without exception, the scourging just before going out to the Calvary, was the routine. (John 19:1) Except for the spear-piercing which was not part of the Roman agenda to check anyone to verify if he was dead. And surely, Jesus was no exception. That was added by the hellenists who wrote the gospels to enhance Jesus' credibility as a fulfiller of prophecy.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

markdohle, on 19 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

The Christian faith sprung up right after the Resurrection.  That was because many wittnessed Jesus after he rose.  Paul talks about the 500, many of which were still alive at his writing. So they could be checked out.    He wrote his letters before the Gospels, well as far as we know.  The Jews did not believe that one man would rise from the dead, nor were they stupid, but intelligent and educated people.  People will die for what they believe, they will die for a known lie.  Many so called leaders came and were killed like Jesus, and the movments ended.  Why not this one.  It was because Jesus did rise from the dead.  Myths take years to start, they don't come into full bloom during the life of those who expereiced what Jesus did, his miracles and yes his resurrection.  Many of the first Christians were members of very Parties that killed him, because of the experience of the risen Lord, many Jewish religious leaders became his followers....Paul being one of them.

Peace
mark

There was not a single eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus. When Luke wrote that Jesus appeared for 40 days to his disciples, it was after his passion or sufferings. After one's passion or suffering does not necessarily mean that one even
died; let alone that he resurrected. And to die for a Cause or to render authority to a Cause for its growth, does not say
a thing in terms of evidences of authenticity. Many Muslims die for Islam. Does it mean the religion is divine? Many died for the Bahaii Faith in Iran during the hegemony of the Aiatolla Khomeini. The cause continued to grow afterwards. What is that supposed to say? The same applies to Christianity, I believe.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

markdohle, on 19 November 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

The greeks did not believe in any kind of resurrection.

Peace
mark

Not only the Greeks but the Egyptians too. BTW, the Greeks copied from the Egyptians. Read Homer. And Christians copied from the Greeks. Paus was a hellenistic Jews. He said that Jesus' resurrection was according to his - Paul's - gospel. Read
2 Timothy 2:8. Needless to remind, his expression meant that there was another gospel being preached at the time in whose agenda there was no such a thing preached about Jesus that he had resurrected.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

spartan max2, on 20 November 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

everyone should become agnostic   . We will never know the truth until we die. But guess what we all will die! The great experiment all we have to do is wait. Time will tell. So just be happy

Edit: i know this is kinda off  topic, i just felt like i should say it

If we are to know anything, the time is now while we live. To wait till we die, we will never know anything. Death is the end. (Eccl. 9:5,6)

Ben

[Bluefinger]

Ben Masada, on 03 October 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

FIVE EVIDENCES THAT JESUS COULD HAVE SURVIVED THE CROSS

1 - According to Josephus, a famous Jewish Historian of the First Century, "It was not uncommon for crucifieds to linger on their crosses, passing out and back up to three or four days till death would eventually catch up on them." Jesus was removed from his cross after only a few hours.

The two beside Jesus had their legs broken because of the Sabbath.  For the reason that people could live for days on the cross, the Romans broke the legs of the two so that they could quickly be buried.  They wouldn't be able to push themselves up to breath and would this aphexiate and die.  They pierced Jesus, though, to make sure he was dead.

Quote

2 - According to Mark 15:44, when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate for permission to remove Jesus from the cross for burial, Pilate, an expert in the crufixion of thousands of Jews, "Was deeply concerned and surprised that Jesus had died so soon. Therefore, he summoned the Centurion to verify." Considering that the Roman soldiers were highly
corrupt and that Joseph was quite a rich man in Israel, God knows the size of a possible bribe which affected the reply of the Centurion to Pilate that Jesus was already dead.

  And the unit he sent to guard the tomb was an elite and extremely well disciplined group called the 'Custodians.'  They were able to fend off 100 men with only ten of them.  These men would have paid with their lives if they took such a bribe.  Given that, it is very improbable that they would have been bribed.

Quote

3 - According to Mark 16:1, when that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to Jesus' tomb to anoint his body, when they were surprised to see that the tombstone was removed and the tomb was empty. According to Mat. 28:2, there was an earthquake, an angel came down, removed the tombstone and became equally surprised that the tomb was indeed empty. Never mind the three days and three nights of Mat. 12:40. That supposed-to-be prophecy never got fulfilled.

  

"And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb." (Mark 16:2 ESV)

They didnt get to the tomb on Saturday night.  They got there Sunday morning.

Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Even Matthew 28 shows that they get there on the dawn of the first day (Sunday.)  So did the author err between Matthew 12 and Matthew 28?  Or was Jonah quoted to add context to Nineveh rising up in judgment against the Jews in the first century?  (Matthew 12:41)  

Quote

4 - According to John 19:39, Nicodemus, another rich man in Israel, had brought along about 100 pounds of medication to help Joseph take care of Jesus. It is highly possible that Joseph laid Jesus in his walk-in tomb for an hour or two to prevent unnecessary onlookers and returned later with his men to remove Jesus unto another safer place to mend his wounds.

Perhaps.  But it is likely that the myrrh and aloes were for embalming Jesus' body for burial according to tradition rather than for healing.  The implication was likely to illustrate that Jesus received a king's burial in a rich man's tomb.

John wrote about how the Romans pierced him with a spear and water cane out.  Likely, Jesus couldn't have survived that.  It was much like soldiers of WWII shooting bodies to make sure they were dead and not faking it.  It wasn't a new practice.

Quote

5 - According to Acts 1:3, Luke said that, "After his suffering, aka, passion, Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days with many convincing proofs that he was alive, in flesh and bone, eating and driking with his disciples to prove he was not dead. (Luke 24:42,43) Focus that Luke said that Jesus appeared after his suffering (passion) and not after his death. And, if we consider resurrection here, the evidence goes way out of proportion because, to eat and drink after resurretion just as one used to before death, brings down the whole concept of the Pauline gospel of spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:35-44)

Ben

Luke 24 gives account of the resurrection.  That means that Jesus resurrected after three days and then went revealing himself to His disciples for 40 days afterward.

Good questions though.