Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 10:51 PM
22 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,129 Year: 5,166/19,786 Month: 1,288/873 Week: 184/460 Day: 29/97 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   How Likely Is It Jesus' Got Married
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2037 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 31 of 109 (316246)
05-30-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by arachnophilia
05-30-2006 5:14 AM


Re: XXY isn't female (OT aside)
yes, yes, we got that. move on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2006 5:14 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 32 of 109 (316254)
05-30-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by igor_the_hero
05-28-2006 11:41 PM


Re: The Church
Hi,

Jesus is the only perfect person.(Born of a virgin, remember?)

But, Jesus was not the only person to be born of a virgin.

Siddartha Gautama was born of a virgin, as was Zoroaster and Attis.

If we take the fundy Xian translation of 'almah' in Isaiah 7:14 as being a sexual virgin, then Jesus wasn't even the first person born of a virgin in the Bible!!!!

So what would it mean if he had kids? It just doesn't match up with what the Bible says that marriage is to be displayed and stuff.

What we need to remember is that the Gospels are not a full account of Jesus' life, it isnt possible to know every single thing about Him, all we can do is have educated guesses. it is not unreasonable to claim that a Rabbi would be married, it is not unreasonable to assume that any adult man was married, in fact, it is more UNLIKELY that a man would remain unmmarried in Jewish society.

We also have to remember that the Gospels were not written by anyone who actually knew Jesus, so all the information we have about Him is at least second hand, there are no primary sources, which could mean that the authors of the Gospels only presented what they wanted us to know or what they saw as being important. It could be that they didn't mention His marriage because they didn't see it as being that important, or that they may have taken it for granted that people would have known that he was married.

Personally, I do not know what all the fuss is about, if Jesus was fully human then He would have had sexual desires just like the rest of us.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by igor_the_hero, posted 05-28-2006 11:41 PM igor_the_hero has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 33 of 109 (316275)
05-30-2006 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by macaroniandcheese
05-29-2006 10:08 AM


Re: The Church
Igor writes:

How likely is it that Jesus was married and his line continued? I personally find it extremely unlikely. If you look in The Bible, there sre 4 accounts of his life and they make no mention of it. I just want some people's opinions of whether or not they think it could be true.


Mick writes:

What I really want to know is - what are the implications of Jesus having married? What are the theological implications? That Jesus had a cock? Is that it? Is that why the Churches are up against it?

Hi Mick! :) From what I have heard, many theologians are against the idea because they believe that Jesus was betrothed to the people as a whole and that His mission required that He devote Himself to that cause exclusively (which would rule out a wife and family)

The second reason is because scripture does not support it. Of course, if we question scripture (by using human wisdom as our primary source) than I suppose that we could conclude anything about the Bible.

Philosophically, I think that the answer is unprovable scholastically. How can one scholar be more trustworthy than another, particularly those with agendas?

By that I mean that some critics say that believing apologists already have an agenda of promoting the Biblical accounts and are thus biased.

Other critics, however, say that secular scholars with no bias have an agenda to debunk the entire idea that the Bible is a preserved and accuracte representation of Jesus life.

Ringo writes:

Just off the top of my head, I'd say it would "mean" absolutely nothing if He had kids. Is having kids some kind of "imperfection"? How would having kids change His teachings?

Perhaps, Ringo. Lemme ask you this, though. If He were not actually the unique Son of God but rather merely another in a long line of human teachers, would that affect the source and origin of your personal faith? I realize that you advocate following the message and behaving correctly and all, but do you actually think that you yourself are the source of this power and ability?

We all have opinions and beliefs. Beliefs, if based on what we have been taught, are nothing more than opinions. Is the Bible innerrent or not? Does it really matter?

What matters is whether or not God is real. Only by having settled this issue internally can anyone have a belief about the issue. Otherwise, it is just an opinion (untested)

I suppose that theoretically Jesus COULD have been married, although I think that the symbolism is that we all are His family. (of course, I am a Trinitarian, so I would think this way)

Ned writes:

Didn't Jesus' Dad have a kid -- out of wedlock and with a woman married to another?

Yes but He was the Judge so He got off with that one! The lawyers had no case against Him! :)

arachnophilia writes:

ok, so jesus has to be perfect if he's to be a sacrifice for our sins. central to christianity, ok, got it.
being born of a virgin doesn't have anything to do with that, at all. that bit is to make him the literal son of god.

Well, the sinless blood concept would allow for Jesus to remain single. Was not the idea that He would eventually marry the whole church? He and us are in courtship currently... some are opting for a pre-nup, however. No seats at the wedding for them!

arachnophilia writes:

i think that requiring christ to NOT be human is a bit, well, silly. part of the whole idea was that he WAS human (even if he was something else as well) and subject to all the concerns of fleshly existence that we are. and he was perfect anyways. he's an example, if anything, of what we are capable of -- not an unattainable standard held against us.

I suppose that the issue is How we attain this standard. Jesus was on a mission from His Father...a business trip, as it were. He had no time for marriage. (Unless you consider Him just another in a long line of human teachers.) Very Jewish.

brennakimi writes:

see, the idea is that bachelors don't understand how real life works. met any very wise bachelors before? i didn't think so.

Hey, Brenn! Im a bachelor and I think I relate to teenagers better than most adults I know, including parents. I will admit that when they talk of dating and sexual issues, I am clueless, however! :)

Of course, if Jesus was as divine as He was human, He may have a few insights that mere human only teachers lack.

brennakimi writes:

i think it would be better if we thought of jesus as married. because then we can ask 'how did jesus treat his wife?' sure they say it now, but they don't mean it. they appropriate jesus' wife being the church.

I think that the church IS Jesus wife, and that He treats her more than fairly! She is a bit of a waunderer, though.....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-29-2006 10:08 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 1:00 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 05-30-2006 1:57 PM Phat has responded
 Message 36 by lfen, posted 05-30-2006 3:54 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2037 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 34 of 109 (316280)
05-30-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
05-30-2006 12:52 PM


Re: The Church
I think that the church IS Jesus wife, and that He treats her more than fairly! She is a bit of a waunderer, though.....

yes, but indeed, the OT says that the jews were god's wife. or close enough. there is some precedent. but look at how god treated his wife when she strayed. he beat her until she returned. is that a good example for christian husbands?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 05-30-2006 12:52 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16358
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 35 of 109 (316292)
05-30-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
05-30-2006 12:52 PM


Re: The Church
Phat writes:

If He were not actually the unique Son of God but rather merely another in a long line of human teachers, would that affect the source and origin of your personal faith?

No.

The message is valid because it makes sense: "love thy neighbour" just works out better for everybody. If "the unique Son of God" came along with a message of "flood they neighbour", would you buy it?

... do you actually think that you yourself are the source of this power and ability?

I get by with a little help from my friends. :)

I suppose that theoretically Jesus COULD have been married, although I think that the symbolism is that we all are His family.

Don't confuse symbolism with reality.

Jesus said that (symbolically) all men are His brothers. That doesn't mean that He didn't have real biological brothers. Similarly, if the church is (symbolically) His wife, that doesn't mean that He didn't have a real biological wife.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 05-30-2006 12:52 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 05-30-2006 7:03 PM ringo has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2786 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 36 of 109 (316338)
05-30-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
05-30-2006 12:52 PM


Re: The Church
If He were not actually the unique Son of God but rather merely another in a long line of human teachers, would that affect the source and origin of your personal faith? I realize that you advocate following the message and behaving correctly and all, but do you actually think that you yourself are the source of this power and ability?

Although this appears a reasonable line of argument it puts you on a slippery slope. I mean if he were actually "the unique Son of God" then he could have just floated to earth on a cloud, or materialized in the Temple or something. Once you get into the "super" natural anything is possible and then everything is reasonable. This position can be mistaken for other than human wisdom but it's been a line of thought people have engaged in for a very long time.

In the East the notion is not simply human teacher but one who has awakened to his identity with the divine. The Christian "unique Son of God" is a pagan concept that has been added to Judaism. If there had been a teacher that is the basis for Paul's Christ then I suspect he had been trying to convey his awakening to people who simply hadn't the background to understand it and he dying at the outset of his teaching never had the time to develop.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 05-30-2006 12:52 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 37 of 109 (316374)
05-30-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
05-30-2006 1:57 PM


The symbolism of Christianity
Topic: How likely is it that Jesus Got Married?

Ringo writes:

Don't confuse symbolism with reality.

You and I go with different flows, here. Communion is both a symbolism and a reality, IMHO.
Lets discuss symbolism.

  • The Virgin Birth was symbolic. Was it reality?
  • Original Sin is symbolic. As we observe the behavior of our species, can we see any evidence for the reality behind it?
  • Holy Communion, or common union, is symbolic. Do we humans have a need of it? Is it a necessary reality?

    I don't see Jesus a merely another in a long line of sages and moral teachers in touch with spirituality.

    You may suggest that the teaching is tied to the fact that we all are capable of right behavior and would be well advised to go and do likewise.

    Human nature seems to point to directly the opposite direction. 5% of the people on the planet own or control 85-90% of the resources, according to my college sociology book. This hardly sounds like the message is getting through.

  • The symbolism of Christ rising from the dead is a necessary reality for the power of Christianity to change an individual, in the belief of many. ( of course, many christians who claim to be saved are also not walking advertisments for this message, so perhaps my argument is moot.

    I guess that what I'm trying to say in all of this is the opinion that Jesus would have no need for marriage because

  • He did not need to have communion with a woman to feel completeness in Himself.
  • He would have no need or purpose to bear natural children.

    Assuming, of course, that this human man was also a bit more than the rest of us! (Thats what Rising from the Dead will do for you! :)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 35 by ringo, posted 05-30-2006 1:57 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 38 by ringo, posted 05-30-2006 8:02 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 41 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 11:16 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
  • ringo
    Member
    Posts: 16358
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 38 of 109 (316396)
    05-30-2006 8:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
    05-30-2006 7:03 PM


    Re: The symbolism of Christianity
    Phat writes:

    Topic: How likely is it that Jesus Got Married?

    Yes. So I won't get into the question of the virgin birth or the myth of original sin. :)

    Jesus would have no need for marriage because... He did not need to have communion with a woman to feel completeness in Himself.

    I don't think any man (or woman) needs to be married to feel "completeness" in themselves. But if Jesus was truly human, He certainly would feel a need to "have communion with a woman".


    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by Phat, posted 05-30-2006 7:03 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Member
    Posts: 5622
    From: Austin, TX
    Joined: 05-03-2006


    Message 39 of 109 (316434)
    05-30-2006 11:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
    05-29-2006 6:57 AM


    Cosmic implications
    i think the whole issue is just silly.

    Ditto. But perhaps my reasoning differs on why I think its silly.

    ok, so jesus has to be perfect if he's to be a sacrifice for our sins. central to christianity, ok, got it. being born of a virgin doesn't have anything to do with that, at all. that bit is to make him the literal son of god.

    Yeah, that bears no relevance as to why the whole idea is problematic on the most fundamental level.

    what does his own virginity have to do with anything? it's not a sin to get married. it's not a sin to have children with your wife. every other major jewish leader had a wife, and usually kids. moses was married, aaron was married. all of the patriarchs were married. david was married. the idea of chastity as it relates to holiness is utterly foriegn to judaism.

    Marriage is not a sin. Having sex while marry is not a sin. His virginity has nothing to do with His holiness or lack thereof. Jesus from an early age expressed that He was about His Father's buisness. Getting married and having little chitlins was not apart of the program. Jesus existed for one, central purpose - and that purpose is to reveal Himself as the Messiah and to become the sacrificial Lamb to cover sin in the penitent man/woman. Having a typical life did not fit into the parameter of His purpose.

    Aside from this, consider how God in His infinite wisdom, could forsee the cosmological and astronomical implications for the Son of God raising children. What happens in the speculation even today?

    Man 1: "I come from the line of Christ."

    Man 2: "No, I come from the line of Christ."

    And so, there would be this underlying indication that one man is 'holier' by virtue of association or by bloodline. Don't you think that God would seek to ensure that such a trivial notion wouldn't arise? I mean, look how ridiculous people act concerning the 'Spear of Destiny," or the "Holy Grail," as if trinkets make you holy! This elucidates well the fact that so many still don't know Jesus, even the one's that claim they do. This just further supports that people are fickle and their understanding of God is abysmal. If you need 'things' to help you be holy or you need little beads, or candles, or incense, or whatever material object in order to be holy, you miss the point entirely. On just on the principle that they don't know what holiness even means, makes their quest for it all the more invalid.

    Lastly, there is absolutely no evidence corroborating that Jesus was married. To even imply it, I suspect, is intended to stir up controversy in order to bring Jesus into disrepute. I have no doubt that the "Divinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is an intentional act of heresey, in order to destroy peoples faith in the historical Christ. But, there isn't even circumstancial evidence to support the assertion that Jesus was either married or bore children. And this whole thing that Da Vinci had some kind of esoteric knowledge of this assertion is laughable. Why? For one, Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper was an artists rendition, a construct of his mind, as he envisioned it to be. He lived 1,000 years after Christ was alive. People are acting like Christ and the Posse were posing in front of Leonardo or something. Furthermore, if it was so secretive, then why even give 'clues' at all if they wanted to suppress this information?

    All in all, the whole story is quite silly to me, though a copy of the Da Vinci Code might make for some good kindling. :D


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 6:57 AM arachnophilia has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 43 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 11:19 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
     Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 2:21 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
     Message 78 by Phat, posted 08-26-2006 9:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
     Message 83 by Brian, posted 08-28-2006 2:04 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

        
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 87 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 40 of 109 (316438)
    05-30-2006 11:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 22 by ramoss
    05-29-2006 8:44 PM


    Yes indeed. He followed in the footsteps of John the Baptist, and as a matter of fact, was baptisted by John the Baptist according to the gospels.

    This would be more indicative of someone who was CONSIDERED ritutalisticaly unclean.

    possibly. it certainly indicates that he had a great deal of compassion for the "unclean." i'm not sure if it means anything.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by ramoss, posted 05-29-2006 8:44 PM ramoss has not yet responded

      
    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 2037 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 41 of 109 (316441)
    05-30-2006 11:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
    05-30-2006 7:03 PM


    Re: The symbolism of Christianity
    I guess that what I'm trying to say in all of this is the opinion that Jesus would have no need for marriage because
    # He did not need to have communion with a woman to feel completeness in Himself.
    # He would have no need or purpose to bear natural children.

    if he was more complete than ordinary men, then he wasn't wholly man and wholly god. if he was complete in himself, then he was not tempted as man. if he was not lonely (and the bible suggests he sometimes was), then he did not experience humanity.

    further, i think we are all complete in ourselves. it is unhealthy to marry to try to fill an emptiness. you marry because you wish for a companion to share the happy road you have discovered.

    and, jesus was a jew. jews have a religious requirement to fill the earth and make their numbers as the sand on the shore or the stars in the heavens. they had a promise from god to fulfill. he absolutely had a purpose in having children.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by Phat, posted 05-30-2006 7:03 PM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-31-2006 10:41 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 87 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 42 of 109 (316443)
    05-30-2006 11:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 23 by igor_the_hero
    05-29-2006 10:30 PM


    Re: The Church
    O yeah, he is perfect cause he never sinned.

    yes.

    If he came from a virgin, he never got Adam's seed and was perfect from the beginning.

    that's actually irrelevent. such a concept does not exist in judaism.

    Lets say that you were born of a virgin. You would have to spend your whole life without lying, stealing, committing adultery, murdering (which says the Bible is the same as hating someone), and having no other gods. If you can do all that then let me know.

    actually, on those particular charges, i've done pretty well.

    Last time I checked he shot down Judaism when he claimed to be the Messiah.

    where did he claim to be the messiah?

    and no, he didn't.

    quote:
    Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    the concept of the messiah is a jewish concept -- and one which he doesn't actually fulfill, either. (never sat on the throne of david in jerusalem, didn't kick out the foreign occupation)


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by igor_the_hero, posted 05-29-2006 10:30 PM igor_the_hero has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-31-2006 12:56 AM arachnophilia has responded

      
    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 2037 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 43 of 109 (316444)
    05-30-2006 11:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
    05-30-2006 11:05 PM


    Re: Cosmic implications
    But, there isn't even circumstancial evidence to support the assertion that Jesus was either married or bore children.

    there's hardly more evidence that he ever existed. we're all dabbling in might have beens.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-30-2006 11:05 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-31-2006 12:38 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Member
    Posts: 5622
    From: Austin, TX
    Joined: 05-03-2006


    Message 44 of 109 (316458)
    05-31-2006 12:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 43 by macaroniandcheese
    05-30-2006 11:19 PM


    Re: Cosmic implications
    there's hardly more evidence that he ever existed. we're all dabbling in might have beens

    There is no 100% gauruntee that the historical Jesus ever existed, however, I make a simple plea for pluralism as we weigh the juxtaposition. The assertion that Jesus never existed perplexes me. I mean, is it entirely plausible that His personage has been greatly embellished? Sure, of course. But, something has compelled people to believe in the beginning of His existence. In other words, how could such a magnificient personage spring out of thin air? It seems, given the fact that Jesus is the most widely discussed figure in human history, that there is on some level, veracity to support at the least, His existence.

    This line of questioning is equally perplexing when juxtaposed by other famous, historical figures. For example, Plato. Why is that people challenge the historicity of Christ, but not Plato? Is there corroborating evidence that Plato ever lived? Why does everyone take Plato's existenece for face value, but challenge Jesus? It appears that a level of bias is always present when discussing Jesus, that it is hardly ever present when discussing other famous people.

    For the sake of the argument, I understand that Plato never made fantasitic claims about himself. I take this into consideration. But, for starters, lets look at this logically. Plato lived several generations before Jesus, well into the 3rd millenium BC. As time passes, the lines between fiction and reality can become skewed, as history degrades into tales. Secondly, there are under 700 known manuscripts of Homer's Illiad in existence. None of them are originals. The Bible, on the other hand, is the best selling book (or compilation of books) in the existence of literature. In fact, its been the best selling book since the invention of the printing press, which was in the 1400's. Does that mean the Bible has survived tampering? No, not necessarily. But there is great evidence to support that the Bible has retained its originality.

    So, we see that Plato has not been challenged, even without much corroborating evidence. (Don't misunderstand this to mean that I don't believe Plato existed. I'm merely proving a point of bias). But there is alot of extra-biblical evidence supporting that Jesus was in fact a distinct person of the past.

    1. Flavius Josephus: (37 AD – 101 AD) Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born four years after Jesus’ physical death. As evidenced by his writings, Josephus was quite familiar with the turmoil in Palestine during the Roman occupation. As well, Josephus wrote about central figures of the New Testament period.

    a. Josephus makes mention of John the Baptist: “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, called the Baptists: For Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God. And so to come to Baptism; for the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly cleansed beforehand by righteousness.”

    b. Josephus makes mention of Jesus: “Now, there was about that time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as to receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had him condemned to the cross. Those that loved him did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.”

    c.Josephus makes mention of James, the brother of Jesus: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

    d.Josephus makes mention of Ananias, the High Priest: “Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias, he increased in glory every day, and this to a degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder of money.”

    2. Tacitus: (55 AD – 117 AD) Tacitus was a Roman historian who makes mention of the early Christians.
    “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians, by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it’s origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontious Pilate. A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for a moment, broke out again not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular… And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps… people began to pity these sufferers, because, they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.”

    3. Thallus: (52 AD) Thallus was a historian who wrote about the Eastern Mediteranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Here, Thallus records an eclipse of the sun, contemporaneous with the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.” In addition, this was also recorded in Luke’s gospel. What is most interesting is that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, which is on a full moon. It is not physically possible for an eclipse to occur on a full moon. “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until about the ninth hour, the sun being obscured; and a veil of the Temple was torn in two.” –Luke 23:44-45

    4. Pliny the Younger: (112 AD) Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. He here, in his tenth book, makes mention of Jesus. “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor dent a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

    5. The Babylonian Talmud: (33 AD) This is the actual recording by the very men that ordered the execution of Jesus. *Take note of His charge* “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything on his behalf, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.” Therefore, we see that Jesus was crucified for supposedly leading others away from the Law and for sorcery. This corroborates the gospels magnificently, as we see extra-biblical evidence of His miracles and of His teachings, even though He did NOT teach against the Law. “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one who hangs from a tree.” –Galatians 3:13

    6. Lucian: (120 AD – 180 AD) Lucian, a Greek writer and rhetorician, speaks of the early Christians. “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures’s start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them. And then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and to deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they quite take on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

    So, all in all, there really is no reason why I think anyone should challenge that Jesus, at the very least, was an actual figure in human history. Whether or not you want to believe the prophecies concerning Him is another matter of debate. But for the time being, I would like to eradicate the notion that He never existed.

    "I marvel that whereas the ambitious dreams of myself, Caesar, and Alexander should have vanished into thin air, that a Judean peasant, Jesus, should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 11:19 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by nwr, posted 05-31-2006 12:52 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
     Message 48 by jar, posted 05-31-2006 1:08 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
     Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-31-2006 10:07 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
     Message 57 by Kapyong, posted 05-31-2006 7:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

        
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5585
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005


    Message 45 of 109 (316462)
    05-31-2006 12:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
    05-31-2006 12:38 AM


    Re: Cosmic implications
    This line of questioning is equally perplexing when juxtaposed by other famous, historical figures. For example, Plato. Why is that people challenge the historicity of Christ, but not Plato?

    It doesn't really matter whether Plato existed or not. We value Plato for the writings attributed to him, not for his existence.

    For many people, it matters greatly whether Jesus existed or not. Therefore questions about the historicity of Jesus are more important than those about the historicity of Plato.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-31-2006 12:38 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-31-2006 1:02 AM nwr has not yet responded

      
    Prev12
    3
    45678Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019