The Existence of Jesus Christ

I don't mean to offend. What I was thinking is that those of you that are not believers are so obviously intelligent, deep thinking individuals...as a Christian my heart's desire is that man comes to kow Jesus Christ in the pardon of their sinn, that Christ died for them, for us. Just keep thinking it out. I have never visited a site like this one, you kow, where opinions differ but are largely respected. As I have said, I love this site!This message has been edited by valerieelliott, 06-15-2005 12:20 AM

Chrestus is close to Christ, and the early Christians were largely Jewish so his description is pretty much what you'd expect if he was describing casting out Christians from Rome. Most likely, many non-Christian Jews were also cast out as the whole thing would be seen as a Jewish thing.My understanding though is this wasn't when Paul was crucified, but maybe I am wrong.But there is also the argument that this fits well with when Paul met Priscilla and Aquilla who had to leave Rome.

Greetings,

quote:

---

because when he sees the evidence is ready to dismiss it no matter what.

---

No.
I have examined the evidence closely and given specific reasons why it is suspect.

quote:

---

For example, the claim there are no writings from the apostles who met Jesus is facetiously based on agressive disbelief.

---

Most modern scholars agree, your insults not-withstanding.Can you produce any evidence of a document written by sonmeone who met Jesus?

quote:

---

Three books written by the hand of eyewitnesses--based on all objective criteria for research in ancient writings--and another by one who took lots of first-person testimony, which books are corroborated by other contemporary references to those times that followed almost immediately, relatve to historical time lines.

---

False.
The Gospels were originally anonymous, we have no idea who really wrote them.G.Mark was first - it was written probably in Rome by someone who had never even been to Palestine.G.Luke and G.Matthew copied G.Mark wholesale - hardly the act of an eye-witness.G.John tells a completely different story - the most full of spiritual waffle, the least historical and latest of all - not by an eye-witness.There are NO contemporary references.Only later legends.

quote:

---

The evidence against these four books is given by people who approach the subject with agressive disbelief, many times even cloaked in the color of deceipt by virtue of a *nominal* belief in deities or persons vaguely resembling those referred to in said Scriptures. But not even the professional disbelievers in the "Jesus Seminar" pretend that he didn't exist.

---

You repeat this mantra "agressive bisbelief" as if it proves something,
yet
all you offer is agressive faith in return.

quote:

---

HOMER'S "ILIAD": The earliest copies that we have in known existance today of Homer's "Iliad", dating to the thirteenth century. Iasion has possibly read the English translation of this book, and undoubtedly did not question his teacher as to whether this was an invention of some ninth-century fiction writer.

​

JULIUS CAESAR, "GALLIC WARS": The earliest copy of "Gallic Wars", written by Julius Caesar, dates to one thousand years later than the original. The only corroborating historical reference to his authorship that I was only able to find was one, Suetonius.

---

So what?What ON EARTH do you think accuracy of copies has ANYTHING to do with truth of contents?We have the original manuscript of Lord of The Rings - does that make it true?We have manuscripts of the Book of Mormon from very early after its writing - does that make it true?What about the legends of Osiris inscribed in stone in the pyramids - the ORIGINAL VERSION from thousands of years ago - according to your theory, that makes it completely true.What nonsense!The accuracy or dating of copies of STORIES has NOTHING to do with the truth of the STORIES.Can YOU explain why you think it does?

quote:

---

Until recently, the earliest known NT document is a fragment from the book of John, found in Egypt 1920, written on both sides, and dated to between AD 125 and AD 150, which would be 35 to 60 or 90 years after the original.

---

Dated by SOME.
Originally it was dated late 2nd or so.
More recent experts have agreed with this date.P52 is a darling of the faithful Christians - every time they tell the story it gets dated earlier.P52 may have been a free floating pericope later added to the Gospel.
P52 may have been a very early copy of the Gospel..
P52 may have been from another book entirely.It proves very little.

quote:

---

Now come the Lukan papyrus, in a Paris library now, a fragment predating that one by 20-30 years, and now a fragment from the book of Mark found among the *Qumram scrolls* (7Q5), thus written sometime before 68 AD.

---

No-one believes this nonsense except the gullible and the faithful.
Scholars have completely demolished the crackpot claims of Thiede.
7Q5 has NOT been given a P number - showing it is NOT considered a NT papyrus.

quote:

---

..This Suetonius, by the way, also refers to Nero's 64 AD persecution of Christians, as in, "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." (__Someone had said that Tacitus was the only such reference__)

---

There is no evidence to support Suetonius' rumour.

quote:

---

Also, Suetonius makes reference to Claudius expelling the Jews out of Rome after a time of some agitation, an event also mentioned in Acts.

---

He refers to CHRESTUS - a real Greek name, causing disturbance in Rome in the 40s.
How can anyone think this has anything to do with Jesus?

quote:

---

References to the four gospels abound also in the writings of the early church fathers from the second, third and fourth century, providing a massively better corroboration of the original authenticity of the actual NT manuscripts and codexes than for any other as to point to original authorship.

---

Yes,
the legends and myths grew masively over the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries - like I said.
But,
in the 1st century - NOTHING.

quote:

---

These references include letters to the Roman rulers in letters pleading with them to check the official records from Palestine for corroboration.

---

Hmm ..
Are you referring to the KNOWN FORGERIES in the Archko Volume?

quote:

---

Known non-Biblical references date Christianity's spread to Nineveh to before the end of the first century, and the earliest known translation papyrus was found there recently, predating other NT copies.

---

So what?
We know Christianity existed in 1st century in various places.What do you think this has to do with evidnce for JESUS?

quote:

---

To question them is to question the authorship of Julius' "Gallic Wars", and of "Iliad", and countless other ancient writings.

---

Rubbish.
We have vast mountains of evidence for Caesar, much of it contemporary.WE have no contemporary evidnce for Jesus - just some later legends.

quote:

---

There are 643 known manuscript copies of the Iliad. There are ten ancient copies of Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars". The NT has over 5,640 Greek manusrcipts of substantial parts or of all of the NT. There are ten thousand manuscripts of the Vulgate.

---

Good god, man!
Why do you keep saying this?Why do you think it has ANYTHING to do with the truth of the contents?We have 400,000 copies of writings of the 1st millenium chinese monk Shenzou (I think that's his name).
Thats VASTLY more than your 5,640.
So,
will you be converting to Shenzouism?Think about what you are saying codetrainer!
This argument is worthless

quote:

---

The records of the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 with Nero, and Peter in 65 AD, and the other apostles, are only so easily dismissed if one has a very strong disbelief bias,

---

Rubbish.
James may have existed.
Paul clearly existed.
Peter may have existed.
I never said otherwise.Do you actually READ what people write?

quote:

---

for there is no other balanced way available to dispute them that does not also invalidate every other ancient record. For (1) there are manuscripts that date closer to the original dates than copies of other ancient documents *by centuries*, (2) these are more numerous and self-corroborating than any other ancient document copy set, and (3) there is more reference and corroboration to them from external documents than for any other, and (4) there are numerous historical references to Jesus Christ that date to his time, and this even allowing the exclusion of the entire New Testament and the testimony of the apostles, and their next-generation followers into the 2nd century AD, confirmed in the strongest possible terms, with their own lives, and that beginning under Nero's reign.

---

WE still have the ORIGINALS from Charles Manson - does that him correct?We still have the originals from the Heaven's Gate cult - does that them correct?When are you going to wake up codetrainer?The NUMBER of copies,
the accuracy of copies,
the dating of documents,
has NOTHING to do with the truth of the contents.Only a complete newbie apologists repeats this long disproven canard.It's not the 1800s anymore, get with the program.Iasion

quote:

---

I don't mean to offend. What I was thinking is that those of you that are not believers are so obviously intelligent, deep thinking individuals...as a Christian my heart's desire is that man comes to kow Jesus Christ in the pardon of their sinn, that Christ died for them, for us. Just keep thinking it out. I have never visited a site like this one, you kow, where opinions differ but are largely respected. As I have said, I love this site!

---

Don't worry, Valerie. I can understand your concern to us lost souls. It's just that some of us had come to the conviction that God is unimportant, or [like me] raised in another religion that said man was born innocent and therefore not needing Christ. As for the experience, I've come across many nice individuals at EvC, of every opinion (of course there are also those less friendly). Just stick around and participate. Just get ready to be challenged.

The point is that this phrase is taking a Greek name 'chretus', and assuming it is 'christ'. It is taking a similar name, and assuming a typo. That is why the 'evidence' for a historical Jesus in Suetonius is not 'evidence' for a historical Jesus.

Thanks, Andya! Some of the comment make me challange myself! lol!
I ain't going nowhere, Friend. This is so stimulating! Makes me wish we were all in the same room, talking it through!

---

Val

It's nice to see that attitude. I am interested in this for the intellectual challenge myself. It nice to see someone who is not intimidated or contemptual of us 'non-believers'.I suspect you will come away from these talks with some insights.
If nothing else, you will at least understand the "non-believers" a bit more.

Ramoss! Thanks for the input. As you say, the site is intellectually stimulate. And I'll let you in on a secret--you guys are far more kind than even we Christians of differing denomiations can and have been! (smile) What is it they say--we can disagree without becoming disagreeable!

---

Val

I think the reason for that is that for the most part, the non-christians are doing this as an intellectual exercise and doesn't have the emotional involvement with it. I think you will find that many of the non-traditional theists, the agnostics and the atheists are ex-christians, and know the religion from the inside out. I learned a lot about early Christianity when looking at my Jewish roots, and found out how misreprentitive of the Jewish scriptures many of the evangalistic groups were. Consequently, when I discuss the scriptures, particularly the tanakh, you will see me using the Jewish interpretation and attitudes towards the various passages. I find that many of the non-jewish ex-christians or non-traditional hristians do the same thing.You will find certain basic cultural assumptions about God, about what prophecy is, and what Satan/angels are make a big difference in the interpretation of the stories. For example, in the Jewish tradition, angels do not have free will. They can ONLY do what God wills them to, and can not 'fall' or revolt against god. Think of how that effects the relationship between God/Satan and man. Think of how that effects the interpetation of the story about Adam and Eve.. . and the story of Job.Judaism also doesn't have a hell. 'Ghenna', which is the closest that comes to hell, is more like that concept of purgatory, where a soul will be 'purified' for up to 1 year, and then either goes to 'the world to come', or faces extinction. Also, the afterlife is not really
considered much in the Jewish religion, but it is more concerned about living the good life here (which is it's own reward). Think of how those attitudes distinguish it from either Christainity or Islam.Those cultural differences are some of the reasons that make me skeptical about the Jesus that is described in the gospels. There are just too many non-Jewish concepts being introduced to make me take them as historical.

ramoss: You certainly are full of misinformatin. According to mainstream modern biblical scholarship, none of the gospels were written by eye witnesses.. and there is plenty of evidence for that point of view==> Misinformation is the rule of the day for the benefit of disbelief. Note that word "..mainstream.." in the phrase "mainstream biblical scholarship".==> And note also this "argument from authority". Rather than addressing the actual facts of the manuscript evidence in terms of numbers and age, as compared to other ancient documents with much less corroboration and much more "mainstream" acceptance; in spite of the evidence from other historical and cultural context of the times, one invokes authorities who justify bad theology with degrees.

I laid out a list of evidence that they were written by eyewitnesses, and the evidence is stronger than it is for hundreds and even thousands other ancient documents that you and these "mainstreamers" have no question about. And here again, an "argument from authority", which is the perennial false complaint always levied against believers. Note the reference to "believers" and how ramoss completely misses the point of the numbers. Real true historians who analyze ancient text for a living make a big deal about it all the time. It provides corroboration for what the original text was, and in their historical context provides evidence for the time-frames pointing to the originals, and so on.The thing does not rest on one fragment by the way, it's just another piece in the long volumes of evidence. Tell me something I don't know. Go read my reference to it again, where I made no such claim at all. The reference is just another in the long string of authenticating examples in context. There is a reference in Acts to this particular persecution, where it also refers to an expelling of "Jews", as opposed to Christians or believers. Actually as seen above, you added context to my quote that was not there.And, the reason I brought Seutonius back up was in the first part of the paragraph you did not address:

quote:

---

..This Suetonius, by the way, also refers to Nero's 64 AD persecution of Christians, as in, "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." (__Someone had said that Tacitus was the only such reference__)

---

=> As in more corroboration, and doubtless there are various others, to the *fact* that Nero persecuted the Christians in 64 AD, a fact accepted by all historians until recently when revisionist historians with a "militant disbelief" began accusing the ancient documents of being revisionist histories, as in the claim that this was only a report of "rumors", a laughably weak attempt at revisionism.-- Alan

Well, if you want to look at the fact that made the vast majority of Biblical scholars deciede that, we most certainly can look at the FACTS.For example, Luke specificlaly says that he is taking previous sources.If you want to take the books one a time, we can. As far as I can see, the ones that CLAIM the books are written by eyewittneses are using bad history, and theology.

This reaction is the best I've seen so far to my points, even though directed to only one point out of the many.I have read Lee Stroebel's book, and the quote from Blomberg, *in context* he is saying that an authorship reference is not "embedded" in the text as in some other books. However, their names date as far back as the texts. To call this "by tradition" is to try to get points with semantics rather than facts.-- Alan

Hi, Exactly. So it is not an insult when you refer to belief as being the only sustaining evidence that Jesus existed, but not for the other way around. You have that already and dismiss it based on the experts you prefer to invoke. From there it's he said-she said, but an observer looking for evidence can determine what he wants to believe.====Gotta cut and run, have a life here...But as a former militant atheist and communist, I followed the evidence to my present beliefs.- Alan

Argument from majority has merit in some venues, but in determining the truth of a matter, it is oftimes deceiving. Biblical scholars that bring their "militant skepticism" to the table will find interminable objections to anything. However, with equivalent evidence from other documents, there is a lack of such unbelief in the face of evidence, in a telling contrast with this subject. That's why I had already said that three of them were written by eyewitnesses, and another by one who took testimony from eyewitnesses. This latter assertion is indeed in the introduction to the book, where the authorship is indeed directly indicated. The bad theology and the bad history is in the naysayers' camp.Luke I have said was not written by an eyewitness, but was written based on eyewitness testimony, as indicated in the text itself. The other three were titled with their authors' names when they were copied.(1) For going back to the originals, you won't find another document from ancient times where the earliest extant copy is as close to the original dating,(2) you won't find nearly as many corroborating manuscripts and codexes, going back as far and as early,(3) where there is as much corroboration from indirect evidence from those who knew the apostles personally, such as Polycarp, who himself showed his confidence in the truth by witnessing with his own life,(4) other confident early fathers' references to the Roman records themselves,(5) from antagonists themselves nearly contemporary, like this exchange between Trajan the Emperor and Pliny the Younger,

quote:

---

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

---

where Pliny asks for guidance on how to handle this fast-growing sect of Christians, while governor of Pontus/Bithynia in the years 111-113. A sect grown around a man crucified and according to his contemporary followers resurrected, in happenings only some seventy years prior. Many of the older ones alive at that very time would have also been around during any times when the Christian message could have been falsified. Not as early as the (so far) at least two historical and contemporary references to Nero's persecution in 64 AD, but closer than many other references taken for granted by the same disbelieving skeptics who balk at these.(6) Then you have the set of manuscripts that are consistent in content that also goes back as far as you can get to the original, and is also corroborated by the agreement among them. Besides this, you have the writings of the earliest church fathers from the second century, in spite of being hindered by waves of Roman persecutions, quoting profusely from the NT and the gospels.(7) the early second century, barely a scant two generations removed from the dates in question, you have references to those four gospels as inspired. It is even said that almost all the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the early writings of these church fathers. There have been counted 36,289 distinct New Testament references from the writings of the earliest church fathers alone, from the first and second centuries, from disparate places and disparate times but overwhelmingly consistent with the separate line of actual copies of the New Testament books.- Alan